very true, but python makes it oh so easy to be lazy :-)On 4/24/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/23/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> Kirat Singh wrote:> > The reason I looked into this to begin with was that my code used up a> > bunch of memory which was tracea
On 4/23/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kirat Singh wrote:
> > The reason I looked into this to begin with was that my code used up a
> > bunch of memory which was traceable to lots of little objects with
> > instance dicts, so it seemed that if instancedicts took less memory I
>
Kirat Singh wrote:
> The reason I looked into this to begin with was that my code used up a
> bunch of memory which was traceable to lots of little objects with
> instance dicts, so it seemed that if instancedicts took less memory I
> wouldn't have to go and add __slots__ to a bunch of my classes,
Interesting, thanks for the responses. And yeah I meant 1/3, I always mix up negatives.Agree that as you point out the biggest slowdown will be on classes that define their own __hash__, however since classes use instancedicts and this would reduce the dict size from 96 -> 64 bytes, we could blow 4
[Kirat Singh]
> Hi, this is my first python dev post, so please forgive me if this topic has
> already been discussed.
It's hard to find one that hasn't -- but it's even harder to find the
old discussions ;-)
> It seemed to me that removing me_hash from a dict entry would save 2/3 of
> the space
Kirat Singh wrote:
> Hi, this is my first python dev post, so please forgive me if this topic
> has already been discussed.
To my knowledge, this hasn't been discussed before.
> It seemed to me that removing me_hash from a dict entry would save 2/3
> of the space used by dictionaries and also imp
