On Mar 20, 4:21 am, Tim Rowe wrote:
> > Thank you for your response. I did not realize that. That seems like a
> > huge limitation for such a great language.
> > I will look into forking off processes instead of using threads.
>
> If that's what you need to do, yes it is. If it isn't, no it's not.
> Thank you for your response. I did not realize that. That seems like a
> huge limitation for such a great language.
> I will look into forking off processes instead of using threads.
If that's what you need to do, yes it is. If it isn't, no it's not. No
language is optimum for all possible appli
On Mar 19, 10:35 am, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:50:51 -0700, Ryan Rosario
> wrote:
> >I have a parser that needs to process 7 million files. After running
> >for 2 days, it had only processed 1.5 million. I want this script to
> >parse several files at once by using mult
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:50:51 -0700, Ryan Rosario wrote:
I have a parser that needs to process 7 million files. After running
for 2 days, it had only processed 1.5 million. I want this script to
parse several files at once by using multiple threads: one for each
file currently being analyzed.
T
On Mar 19, 9:50 am, Ryan Rosario wrote:
> I have a parser that needs to process 7 million files. After running
> for 2 days, it had only processed 1.5 million. I want this script to
> parse several files at once by using multiple threads: one for each
> file currently being analyzed.
>
> My code i
I have a parser that needs to process 7 million files. After running
for 2 days, it had only processed 1.5 million. I want this script to
parse several files at once by using multiple threads: one for each
file currently being analyzed.
My code iterates through all of the directories within a dire
