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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-May/023915.html below:

[Python-Dev] Unicode objects more space efficient than plain strings? can that be?

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Unicode objects more space efficient than plain strings? can that be?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Unicode objects more space efficient than plain strings? can that be?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    >> I'm inclined to change the pymalloc realloc to copy a shrinking block
    >> if at least 25% of the input block would go away, else leave it
    >> alone.  In this specific case, something like 90% of the input block
    >> could be reclaimed.

    Tim> So I did that.  

Much better, thanks.  Strange that such a naive "benchmark" would lead to
such odd behavior.  I wonder if this is potentially a bugfix candidate, at
least for 2.2.x?

Skip

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Unicode objects more space efficient than plain strings? can that be?
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Unicode objects more space efficient than plain strings? can that be?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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