Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Slow, callbacks, validations #28

Open
krainboltgreene opened this issue Dec 16, 2015 · 2 comments
Open

Slow, callbacks, validations #28

krainboltgreene opened this issue Dec 16, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@krainboltgreene
Copy link

Hey @sunitparekh, I've been looking at your gem. I like the fluent-language a lot!

However I have some suggestions:

  1. It runs #each instead of #find_each, which is significantly faster.
  2. It doesn't allow for the user to skip callbacks.
  3. It doesn't allow for the user to skip validations.
  4. It loads the AR model into memory

All of these things will make the anonymization process slow. My company is about to release a gem we could integrate, called active_record-write. It would make operations faster by a significant amount. Thoughts?

@sunitparekh
Copy link
Owner

Thanks a lot for suggestions and happy to make it better.
Send me a pull request with changes you are suggesting and I will look into
those and do the necessary which can help make tool better.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 at 4:58 AM, Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hey @sunitparekh https://github.com/sunitparekh, I've been looking at
your gem. I like the fluent-language a lot!

However I have some suggestions:

  1. It runs #each instead of #find_each, which is significantly faster.
  2. It doesn't allow for the user to skip callbacks.
  3. It doesn't allow for the user to skip validations.
  4. It loads the AR model into memory

All of these things will make the anonymization process slow. My company
is about to release a gem we could integrate, called active_record-write.
It would make operations faster by a significant amount. Thoughts?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#28.

@JasonBarnabe
Copy link
Contributor

Points 2 and 3 are fixed by #57

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants