Perfect! Thanks, Nathan. On Monday, September 22, 2014, Nathan Rusch <nathan_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The memory footprint of the list is going to be identical regardless of > what you put in it, since it's only storing pointers. > > Regardless, a few hundred nodes isn't really time to start thinking about > optimization, especially since the Python Node objects are just interfaces > to the Nuke C++ objects, and those are going to exist regardless of whether > you create Python wrappers around them. > > -Nathan > > > *From:* Den Serras > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','denserras...@gmail.com');> > *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 4:40 PM > *To:* Nuke Python discussion > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nuke-python@support.thefoundry.co.uk');> > *Subject:* [Nuke-python] Optimization of storing nodes > > Hey all, very basic optimization question! If I want to store a reference > to a few hundred nodes, and then access information from them later, should > I store the node object in my list, or store the fullName() and then grab > it later? I used sys.getsizeof(list) and the resulting size is the same > seemingly no matter what I do, so I assume Nuke is holding the actual bytes > from the list somewhere else. > > Thanks! > Den > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-python mailing list > Nuke-python@support.thefoundry.co.uk > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Nuke-python@support.thefoundry.co.uk');>, > http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-python > >
_______________________________________________ Nuke-python mailing list Nuke-python@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-python
