On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Chris Riddoch <riddo...@gmail.com> wrote
> > If the workarounds mentioned actually work (I haven't tried) I really > don't understand why. This *looks* like a genuine bug to me, but I > really don't know Clojure's internals well enough (yet) to be able to > have the slightest hint where to start looking. I don't see any > reason why (reduce + (range <largenumber>)) should take so much > memory. > > -- > Chris Riddoch > A entire collection of 5e7 *objects* is being realized into memory as it is being reduced down to a single value to be stored into a var. I would expect this to perform poorly in any language. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
