On Friday 07 April 2006 10:59 am, Ola Bini wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yes, that's actually a pretty good idea, to use it as a test case.
> Just try to scramble up a few K's or M's of data and run through it and see
> what happens.
>
> As for creating it all the time... Are we using Java regexps for this, btw?
On Friday 07 April 2006 10:55 am, Thomas E Enebo wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006, Ola Bini defenestrated me:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Well, as you can see, this part has nothing to do with Syck either. It is
> > not the speed of YAML-parsing that's the issue (at least not yet... =),
> > but the speed of this p
Hi
Yes, that's actually a pretty good idea, to use it as a test case.
Just try to scramble up a few K's or M's of data and run through it and see
what happens.
As for creating it all the time... Are we using Java regexps for this, btw?
If we are, then it would make sense to compile a regexp t
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006, Ola Bini defenestrated me:
> Hi.
>
> Well, as you can see, this part has nothing to do with Syck either. It is
> not the speed of YAML-parsing that's the issue (at least not yet... =), but
> the speed of this particular
> code fragment.
Bummer, I was hoping the each in y
Hi.
Well, as you can see, this part has nothing to do with Syck either. It is
not the speed of YAML-parsing that's the issue (at least not yet... =), but
the speed of this particular
code fragment. And yes, I had the patience to let it work in about 25k
lines before it started to make my other
I was going to ask if it was working on a zlib thing, but I can see it
is already inflated. Something tells me this could have been the motivation
for moving to Syck.
Have you put in prints or the like to make sure this thing is
not just looping over the same stuff endlessly? I am hoping
