RetroSearch Browse

Tue Oct 19 15:44:42 CEST 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049484.html

Evan Jones wrote:
> That is correct. If you look at the implementation for lists, it keeps a 
> maximum of 80 free lists around, and immediately frees the memory for 
> the containing array. Again, this seems like it is sub-optimal to me: In 
> some cases, if a program uses a lot of lists, 80 lists may not be 
> enough. For others, 80 may be too much. It seems to me that a more 
> dynamic allocation policy could be more efficient.

I knew this discussion sounded familiar. . .

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/045403.html
(and assorted replies)

I'm not saying I *like* the unbounded lists. . . but there's a reason 
they're still like that (i.e. getting the memory usage down tends to 
take some of Python's speed with it - and there isn't exactly a lot of 
that to be spared!).

Still, fresh eyes on the problem may see something new :)

Cheers,
Nick.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049484.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: Python-Dev Digest, Vol 15, Issue 46