On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 19:30, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please also note that CPython uses a freelist of unused dict instances.
> The default size of the dict free list is 80 elements. The allocation
> and deallocation of dicts is cheap if you can stay below the threshold.
Tha
Robert Kern wrote:
> Yes, we know that. The concern I was addressing was the time overhead
> for creating the new dict object every time an ndarray gets
> instantiated. Most of these dict objects would be unused, so we would
> be wasting a substantial amount of time. If you push off the creation
>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 17:31, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>> I think you could make the dictionary created lazily on the first getattr().
>
> In order to make it work you have to reserve space for a PyObject*
> pointer for the instance dict somewhere in your ty
Robert Kern wrote:
> I think you could make the dictionary created lazily on the first getattr().
In order to make it work you have to reserve space for a PyObject*
pointer for the instance dict somewhere in your type definition. It's
going to increase the size of every object by 4 bytes on a 32
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
> >
> 3) Are the additional 4-8 bytes too expensive
>
> >>> One of the problems with numarray was the time taken to allocate small
> >>> arrays. Would adding a dictionary slow down the allo
Robert Kern wrote:
>
3) Are the additional 4-8 bytes too expensive
>>> One of the problems with numarray was the time taken to allocate small
>>> arrays. Would adding a dictionary slow down the allocation of numpy arrays?
>>>
No, I don't think so, not if we did nothing by
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 15:15, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> While we are on the subjec
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Travis E. Oliphant <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> While we are on the subject of C-API changes, I've noticed that quite a
>> few of the sub-classes of ndarr
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> While we are on the subject of C-API changes, I've noticed that quite a
> few of the sub-classes of ndarray are constructed to basically add
> meta-information to the array.
>
> What if the base-class
Hello all,
While we are on the subject of C-API changes, I've noticed that quite a
few of the sub-classes of ndarray are constructed to basically add
meta-information to the array.
What if the base-class ndarray grew a dict object at it's end to hold
meta information.
Naturally, several
10 matches
Mail list logo
