Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'barerd'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Benchmarking ORM associations

    - by barerd
    I am trying to benchmark two cases of self referential many to many as described in datamapper associations. Both cases consist of an Item clss, which may require many other items. In both cases, I required the ruby benchmark library and source file, created two items and benchmarked require/unrequie functions as below: Benchmark.bmbm do |x| x.report("require:") { item_1.require_item item_2, 10 } x.report("unrequire:") { item_1.unrequire_item item_2 } end To be clear, both functions are datamapper add/modify functions like: componentMaps.create :component_id => item.id, :quantity => quantity componentMaps.all(:component_id => item.id).destroy! and links_to_components.create :component_id => item.id, :quantity => quantity links_to_components.all(:component_id => item.id).destroy! The results are variable and in the range of 0.018001 to 0.022001 for require function in both cases, and 0.006 to 0.01 for unrequire function in both cases. This made me suspicious about the correctness of my test method. Edit I went ahead and compared a "get by primary key case" to a "finding first matching record case" by: (1..10000).each do |i| Item.create :name => "item_#{i}" end Benchmark.bmbm do |x| x.report("Get") { item = Item.get 9712 } x.report("First") { item = Item.first :name => "item_9712" } end where the results were very different like 0 sec compared to 0.0312, as expected. This suggests that the benchmarking works. I wonder whether I benchmarked the two types of associations correctly, and whether a difference between 0.018 and 0.022 sec significant?

    Read the article

  • Classless tables possible with Datamapper?

    - by barerd
    I have an Item class with the following attributes: itemId,name,weight,volume,price,required_skills,required_items. Since the last two attributes are going to be multivalued, I removed them and create new schemes like: itemID,required_skill (itemID is foreign key, itemID and required_skill is primary key.) Now, I'm confused how to create/use this new table. Here are the options that came to my mind: 1) The relationship between Items and Required_skills is one-to-many, so I may create a RequiredSkill class, which belongs_to Item, which in turn has n RequiredSkills. Then I can do Item.get(1).requiredskills. This sounds most logical to me. 2) Since required_skills may well be thought of as constants (since they resemble rules), I may put them into a hash or gdbm database or another sql table and query from there, which I don't prefer. My question is: is there sth like a modelless table in datamapper, where datamapper is responsible from the creation and integrity of the table and allows me to query it in datamapper way, but does not require a class, like I may do it in sql?

    Read the article

  • Any special assertion to test if the resulting integer lies within a range

    - by barerd
    I would like to test if an instance variable lies in a range of numbers. I solved the problem by using assert_in_delta but would like to know if there is a formal assertion for this. #part of the tested class def initialize(value = 70 + rand(30)) @value = value end #test_value.rb class ValueTestCase < Test::Unit::TestCase def test_if_value_in_range assert_in_delta(85, p.value, 15) end end

    Read the article

1