Why don't you use your own instance to serialize IxSet lazily (or however you would like?)
There's no reason to be constrained to use the [a] instance. -- Don jeremy: > Hello, > > Is there a work-around? This is killer for Happstack. Most Happstack > applications use IxSet, which in turn uses lists to serialize the data > to/from disk. > > Also, why doesn't the stuff get freed eventually? > > - jeremy > > At Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:27:30 -0700, > Don Stewart wrote: > > > > bos: > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Jeremy Shaw <jer...@n-heptane.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Using encode/decode from Binary seems to permamently increase my > > > memory consumption by 60x fold. I am wonder if I am doing something > > > wrong, or if this is an issue with Binary. > > > > > > > > > It's an issue with the Binary instance for lists, which forces the entire > > > spine > > > of the list too early. This gives you a gigantic structure to hold onto. > > > > This is the current instance > > > > instance Binary a => Binary [a] where > > put l = put (length l) >> mapM_ put l > > get = do n <- get :: Get Int > > getMany n > > > > -- | 'getMany n' get 'n' elements in order, without blowing the stack. > > getMany :: Binary a => Int -> Get [a] > > getMany n = go [] n > > where > > go xs 0 = return $! reverse xs > > go xs i = do x <- get > > -- we must seq x to avoid stack overflows due to > > laziness in > > -- (>>=) > > x `seq` go (x:xs) (i-1) > > > > It used to be this, though, > > > > xs <- replicateM n get -- now the elems. > > > > > > -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
