Jelly performance factors below expectations.
Can we say Copyable is the lowest order jelly? The notion that a copy holder can't ask "is my copy good anymore?" makes it so. Essentially root says, I'd prefer not to repeat unit of work nor keep track of the resulting copies, here have the original or resulting copy.
My main issue is a copy-holder calling for a copy to determine is the copy is good anymore. I know, see cacheable but it's problematic. At this point I'm unsure of what jelly actually does well. who's the JellyCon2014 keynote speaker?
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Glyph firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:17 PM, Kevin Mcintyre email@example.com wrote:
correction. I was stupidly reprocessing list on remote copy side. Seeing much better results now ~10K per second.
Whew. I don't know exactly how well I would expect this perform, but those other results looked off by a couple orders of magnitude :-).
Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python