Message from discussion adjustable arrays
From: Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org>
Subject: Re: adjustable arrays
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 09:28:12 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <rNOSPAMon-E7300E.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <83tnsfFuv2U1@mid.individual.net> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 08:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="XB9WhTIIKVuR25Mmt8Gs/g";
logging-data="5866"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1810Vejl7IxZCIODSNzW2Gd"
On 2010-04-29 18:14:55 +0100, Peter Keller said:
> 546MB up to 1.640GB.
> Now this needed memory for which I can easily account!
> That is a lot of memory to keep resident and perform churn on and hence
> why I'm very paranoid about consing or calling make-array. I use other
> libraries and things and who knows what their memory usages are. But
> at the scaling levels I'm desiring, I have to pay attention to it.
10 years ago this was a lot of memory. Now it's small change. 50 or
100G is something to think about, but less than 4 doesn't count for
much unless you're planning on some vast number of instances.