This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author rhettinger
Recipients mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, tim.peters
Date 2010-11-13.23:02:33
SpamBayes Score 0.0009779657
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1289689354.8.0.363857776985.issue10408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
My previous experiments along these lines showed it was a dead-end.  The number of probes was the most important factor and beat-out any effort to improve cache utilization from increased density.  

Doing extra work (more probes) in order to improve cache effects is very difficult because most real programs have an uneven access pattern so that the most frequently accesses items are usually already in cache.  So, the attempted improvement only helps the less frequently accessed items and isn't worth the extra number of probes.

Another result from earlier experiments is that benchmarking the experiment is laden with pitfalls.  Tight timing loops don't mirror real world programs, nor do access patterns with uniform random distributions.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-11-13 23:02:34rhettingersetrecipients: + rhettinger, tim.peters, mark.dickinson, pitrou
2010-11-13 23:02:34rhettingersetmessageid: <1289689354.8.0.363857776985.issue10408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-11-13 23:02:33rhettingerlinkissue10408 messages
2010-11-13 23:02:33rhettingercreate