Re: Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- From: Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 02 Nov 2005 07:24:28 -0800
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Six megabytes is pretty much nothing on a modern computer. I'd store
> the things as a string of "0" and "1", and then use .find (or maybe
> the in keyword) for doing the searches.
>
> This doesn't work very well if you're going to mutate the string,
> though.
You can use re.search on array.array byte vectors. I don't know how
the speed compares with string.find.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- From: Alex Martelli
- Re: Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- References:
- Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- From: Tor Erik Sønvisen
- Re: Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- From: Mike Meyer
- Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- Prev by Date: computer programming
- Next by Date: Fredericksburg, VA ZPUG Meeting: November 9, 7:30-9:00 PM
- Previous by thread: Re: Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- Next by thread: Re: Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
