> [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. (I guess he means the buffer is alloc'ed contiguously with the dict object head. That's often a nice strategy. Could do that for small lists too maybe, except those haven't gotten anybody's attention just yet.) > > ... > > 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>. Yeah, this one sounds like a nice improvement. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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