I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a database be more memory efficient than a dictionary?
I also need platform
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a database
On Feb 26, 3:58 pm, Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a database be more
In article
891a98fa-c398-455a-981f-bf72af772...@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I
On Feb 26, 9:29 am, Chris Rebert c...@rebertia.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts
Jeremy wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a database be more memory efficient than a dictionary?
I also
Jeremy wrote:
Shelve looks like an interesting option, but what might pose an issue
is that I'm reading the data from a disk instead of memory. I didn't
mention this in my original post, but I was hoping that by using a
database it would be more memory efficient in storing data in RAM so I
On Feb 26, 10:58 am, Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data
How much is lots?
that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a
Shelve looks like an interesting option, but what might pose an issue
is that I'm reading the data from a disk instead of memory. I didn't
mention this in my original post, but I was hoping that by using a
database it would be more memory efficient in storing data in RAM so I
wouldn't have to
In article mailman.296.1267217819.4577.python-l...@python.org,
Patrick Sabin patrick.just4...@gmail.com wrote:
A database usually stores data on disk and not in RAM. However you could
use sqlite with :memory:, so that it runs in RAM.
The OP wants transparent caching, so :memory: wouldn't work.
On Feb 26, 12:58 pm, Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a database be more
In article roy-c4f98b.11395126022...@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net,
Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
Whatever database you pick, you're almost certainly going to end up having
to install it wherever you install your application. There's no such thing
as a universally available database that
In article 891a98fa-c398-455a-981f-bf72af772...@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I
On Feb 26, 7:58 am, Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com wrote:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a database be more
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:56:47 +0100, Patrick Sabin wrote:
Shelve looks like an interesting option, but what might pose an issue
is that I'm reading the data from a disk instead of memory. I didn't
mention this in my original post, but I was hoping that by using a
database it would be more
Jeremy jlcon...@gmail.com writes:
I have lots of data that I currently store in dictionaries. However,
the memory requirements are becoming a problem. I am considering
using a database of some sorts instead, but I have never used them
before. Would a database be more memory efficient than a
17 matches
Mail list logo
