> After more dictionary sparseness experiments, I've become > convinced that the ideal settings are better left up to the user > who is in a better position to know: > > * anticipated dictionary size > * overall application memory issues > * characteristic access patterns (stores vs. reads vs. deletions > vs. iteration) > * when the dictionary is growing, shrinking, or stablized. > * whether many deletions have taken place Hm. Maybe so, but it *is* a feature that there are no user controls over dictionary behavior, based on the observation that for every user who knows enough about the dict implementation to know how to tweak it, there are at least 1000 who don't, and the latter, in their ill-advised quest for more speed, will use the tweakage API to their detriment. --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