On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:46:50AM -0500, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> If forced to pick, in general, I tend to prefer burning CPU not RAM,
>> because the CPU is often a one-time burn, whereas RAM ties up storage
>> for indefinite amounts o
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:46:50AM -0500, Michael McCandless wrote:
> If forced to pick, in general, I tend to prefer burning CPU not RAM,
> because the CPU is often a one-time burn, whereas RAM ties up storage
> for indefinite amounts of time.
With our dependence on indexes being RAM-resident for
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 09:43:12AM -0500, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Yeah, something highly optimized for python in C may not be optimal for Java.
It looks like that algo was tuned to address poor reallocation performance
under Windows 9x.
http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Objects/listobjec
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> Both mild and aggressive over-allocation solve that problem, but aggressive
> over-allocation also involves significant RAM costs. Where the best balance
> lies depends on how bad the reallocation performance is in relation to the
> cost
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:53 AM, DM Smith wrote:
> The pattern that is stated in the comment only occurs under a very
> specific situation: The growing of an array one element at a time
> and reallocation only when the current is exceeded.
Ahh -- that works -- thanks for clarifying. So if you st
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:48:08AM -0500, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> Have you notified python-dev?
>
> No, not yet. Is it kosher with the Python license to have copied-and-pasted
> that comment? It's not credited from what I can see.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:48:08AM -0500, Michael McCandless wrote:
> Have you notified python-dev?
No, not yet. Is it kosher with the Python license to have copied-and-pasted
that comment? It's not credited from what I can see. Small, but we should
probably fix that.
> Right, and also to stri
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> return (targetSize >> 3) + (targetSize < 9 ? 3 : 6) + targetSize;
>
> For input values of 9 or greater, all that formula does is multiply by 1.125
> and add 6. (Values enumerated below my sig.)
>
> The comment appears to have originated
On Jan 13, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:46:29PM -0500, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> So starting at 0, the size is 0.
>> 0 => 0
>> 0 + 1 => 4
>> 4 + 1 => 8
>> 8 + 1 => 16
>> 16 + 1 => 25
>> 25 + 1 => 35
>> ...
>>
>> So I think the copied python comment is correct
Phew, good svn sleuthing Marvin!
Responses below...
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Greets,
>
> I've been trying to understand this comment regarding ArrayUtil.getNextSize():
>
> * The growth pattern is: 0, 4, 8, 16, 25, 35, 46, 58, 72, 88, ...
>
> Maybe I'm missin
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:46:29PM -0500, DM Smith wrote:
> So starting at 0, the size is 0.
> 0 => 0
> 0 + 1 => 4
> 4 + 1 => 8
> 8 + 1 => 16
> 16 + 1 => 25
> 25 + 1 => 35
> ...
>
> So I think the copied python comment is correct but not obviously correct.
So those numbers are supposed to be whe
On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Greets,
>
> I've been trying to understand this comment regarding ArrayUtil.getNextSize():
>
> * The growth pattern is: 0, 4, 8, 16, 25, 35, 46, 58, 72, 88, ...
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see how the formula yields su
Greets,
I've been trying to understand this comment regarding ArrayUtil.getNextSize():
* The growth pattern is: 0, 4, 8, 16, 25, 35, 46, 58, 72, 88, ...
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see how the formula yields such a
growth pattern:
return (targetSize >> 3) + (targetSize <
13 matches
Mail list logo
