Tim Peters wrote: > > [MAL] > > FYI, I have a patch which inlines small dictionaries directly > > into the type object > > You don't mean that, but how about uploading the patch to SF anyway? Assign > it to me and I'll dig into it. Right, I meant the dict object... (the "not enough coffee" thingie again ;-) > > ... > > I've experimented with the minimal size a lot and found that > > setting it to 8 slots gives the bext performance/memory tradeoff. > > Having done just a couple rounds of instrumented runs across various apps, I > was moving to that conclusion too. Also that "small" dicts are so common > that avoiding the "extra" malloc would be a nice win for them, and that large > dicts are rare enough and resizing expensive enough anyway that the new cost > of doing a two-headed allocation strategy would be lost in the noise. IOW, > I'm inclined to believe that everything you say your patch does is Good For > Python, and Guido is so sympathetic to my lack of sleep lately that I bet > he'll let me slip in one uglification without scowling <wink>. I'll see if I find time today to rework the patch for Python CVS. The patch is hiding in my old Python 1.5 killer patch ;-) -- which gives more than a 50% boost on my machine, but that's another story. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4