Facundo

1) the +1024 was an accelerator to jump up to over 1k at the first resize. I think it's a good idea or at least doesn't hurt.

2) Here is an example program:

def test():
    from marshal import dumps
    from time import time
    testString = "abc"*100000000
    print "now testing"
    now = time()
    dump = dumps(testString)
    elapsed = time()-now
    print "elapsed", elapsed

if __name__=="__main__":
    test()

Here are two runs: the first with the old marshal and the second with the patched marshal. The second is
better than 2* faster than the first.

arw:/home/arw/test> ~/apache2/htdocs/pythonsrc/Python/python_old mtest1.py
now testing
elapsed 4.13367795944
arw:/home/arw/test> ~/apache2/htdocs/pythonsrc/Python/python mtest1.py
now testing
elapsed 1.7495341301
arw:/home/arw/test>

The example that inspired this research was very complicated and involved millions of calls to dumps
which caused a number of anomalies (system calls went berzerk for some reason, maybe paging).

   -- Aaron Watters

On Jan 11, 2008 9:25 AM, Facundo Batista < report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

Facundo Batista added the comment:

Why not just double the size? The "doubling + 1024" address some
specific issue? If so, it should be commented.

Also, do you have an example of a marshal.dumps() that suffers from this
issue?

Thank you!

----------
nosy: +facundobatista

__________________________________
Tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1792 >
__________________________________