Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- From: Christian Heimes <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:47:32 +0200
andreas.eisele@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
which made me suggest to use these as defaults, but then
Martin v. Löwis wrote that
No, the defaults are correct for typical applications.
At that point I felt lost and as the general wish in that thread was
to move
discussion to comp.lang.python, I brought it up here, in a modified
and simplified form.
Martin said that the default settings for the cyclic gc works for most
people. Your test case has found a pathologic corner case which is *not*
typical for common application but typical for an artificial benchmark.
Python is optimized for regular apps, not for benchmark (like some video
drivers).
By the way you shouldn't use range for large ranges of more than a
thousand items. xrange() should be faster and it will definitely use
much less memory - and memory Python 2.5 and older will never release
again. I'm going to fix the issue for Python 2.6 and 3.0.
Christian
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- From: Dieter Maurer
- Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- From: andreas . eisele
- Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- References:
- Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- From: andreas . eisele
- Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- From: andreas . eisele
- Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- Prev by Date: Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- Next by Date: Re: unittest: which directory structure?
- Previous by thread: Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- Next by thread: Re: Tremendous slowdown due to garbage collection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|