Datamapper DataMapper → 1.1.1

Comments and changes to this ticket

• 

  Dan Kubb (dkubb) March 16th, 2011 @ 11:47 PM

  • State changed from “new” to “confirmed”

  So what you're saying is that when you're querying the top-most parent class, including the discriminator in the query is unnecessary? I would agree with this.

  Keep in mind that it would still be necessary when querying for any subclass that it include an IN() clause with it's class name and all it's descendants' class names. If the class hierarchy is relatively flat, then this shouldn't be an issue, but if it's narrow and deep it still might be -- although I don't see any other way of getting correct results any other way.

  I would love to see a patch for this optimized behaviour if you're willing to contribute it.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  baccigalupi March 17th, 2011 @ 04:48 PM

  We branched, wrote a test, and deleted the one line, and committed. All the specs pass. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to confirm the speed boost because of a combination of 1.1 not working with our app and gem dependency hell. We are going to make the change on version 1.0.2 as well and commit it locally until 1.1 seems more usable.

  Please do add this change though.

  github: http://github.com/cohuman/dm-core
  commit: 6a96521f7f7e7547fb2c

  I have made a pull request as well.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  baccigalupi March 17th, 2011 @ 06:48 PM

  We made these changes to our locally packaged gem (the best short term solution for us), and we saw a 16% performance boost in our full application stack, so this kind of improvement really matters!

• 

  Dan Kubb (dkubb) March 17th, 2011 @ 10:09 PM

  • State changed from “confirmed” to “resolved”
  • Milestone set to “1.1.1”
  • Milestone order changed from “196340” to “0”

  This has been committed to dm-core: https://github.com/datamapper/dm-core/commit/4562aae8cba28740c6e256...

  @baccigalupi: I'm curious to know what problems you had with 1.1? We reduced a lot of the dependencies between different gems, so the general situation should be significantly better than 1.0.2. Is the problem more that other gems specify dependencies that are lower than what DM gems are tested with?

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  baccigalupi March 18th, 2011 @ 09:53 AM

  Awesome. I am glad that it got in.

  Yes, we are using gems that require lower gem dependencies. We were stuck in an addressable/builder Bundler loop for a while. It took a couple hours of haggling with Bundler, but we finally fully upgraded. The real deal breaker was that dm-paperclip which has not progressed since the summer just wasn't working at all. So we are going to have to craft our own adapter for paperclip or find another library if we want to move to 1.1.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jared Morgan March 18th, 2011 @ 10:51 AM

  As a replacement for dm-paperclip, you might check out https://github.com/jm81/attach/tree/binderclip. It's very much in process, but it includes a DataMapper adapter that is usable (I've used it with 1.0.2 and 1.1.0). If nothing else, it might provide some help if you develop your own adapter. To use it, add the following to your Gemfile:

  gem 'paperclip', '2.3.8'
  gem 'binderclip', '0.3.0', :git => 'git://github.com/jm81/attach.git', :ref => 'e053617', :require => 'binderclip/orm/data_mapper'

  (Sorry for the largely off-topic comment)

• 

  Piotr Solnica (solnic) March 18th, 2011 @ 10:54 AM

  Or you can check out my fork of dm-paperclip which works with latest DM: https://github.com/solnic/dm-paperclip