(original) (raw)
It doesn't currently end up on disk. Some tables are partially or completely stored on disk as Python source code (some are partially generated from simple rules), but others are generated by inverting those. That process takes time that could be avoided by storing the generated tables, and storing all of it in a format that doesn't require parsing, compiling and executing (such as a native array).
Potentially it could be a win all around if we stopped including the (larger) source files, but that doesn't seem like a good idea for maintaining portability to other implementations. The main thought is making the compiler binary bigger to avoid generating encoding tables at startup.
Top-posted from my Windows Phone
Potentially it could be a win all around if we stopped including the (larger) source files, but that doesn't seem like a good idea for maintaining portability to other implementations. The main thought is making the compiler binary bigger to avoid generating encoding tables at startup.
Top-posted from my Windows Phone
From: francismb
Sent: 1/29/2016 13:56
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: \[Python-Dev\] More optimisation ideas
>
> Storing these in static data is a tradeoff between
> disk space and startup performance, and one I think it likely to be
> worthwhile.
it's really an important trade off? As far a I understand from your
email those modules are always being loaded and the final data created.
won't the space be there (on mem or disk)?
Thanks in advance!
francis
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/steve.dower%40python.org