On May 3, 2009, at 1:04 AM, mabshoff wrote: > On May 3, 12:28 am, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote: > > Hi, > > Is there any reason you opened a new ticket and did not use #5949 as > mentioned above? > >> PS: >> >>> One can then do >>> sage: for p in primes(2,1000000): >>> ....: R.<x,y,z> = GF(p)[] >>> sage: get_memory_usage() >>> 778.35546875 >> >> And: >> sage: len(sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring_constructor._cache) >> 34 >> >> Hence, indeed, some rings were garbage collected. > > I am not sure this fixes the problem mentioned above, but I am still > testing. It might reduce the memory used already, but I won't know for > a while. > >> Cheers, >> Simon > > As is this patch breaks badly:
Yep, see http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3706 - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
