[ZODB-Dev] RE: Memory out of control when *NOT* changing objects

[Malcolm Cleaton]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:14:45 -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Malcolm Cleaton]
>> But, why is this necessary? I thought the only circumstance that would
>> bring swap death to the ZODB was a super-sized transaction, full of
>> changed objects.
> 
> Why would you think that?  In the absence of docs, I'm just curious about
> where people get their ideas.

The usual poor chain of deduction based on simplifications and
misconceptions, I guess :)

I knew that objects were liable to be deactivated at any time by ZODB
memory management, from documentation on "_v" volatile attributes of
persistent classes. When I read that large transactions caused memory
problems, I assumed this was solely because modified objects can't be
deactivated, so the memory management can't win.

So I trusted the magic of automated memory management to ghost away enough
objects for me, and to 'just work', so long as I didn't change and not
commit a lot of things in one go.

I'll go for calling sync after committing the transactions, I think.
Thanks for everybody's help.

Thanks,
Malcolm.