Author loewis
Recipients Christophe Simonis, Garen, Nam.Nguyen, amaury.forgeotdarc, arekm, asvetlov, barry, doko, eric.araujo, georg.brandl, jcea, jeremybanks, lars.gustaebel, leonov, loewis, nadeem.vawda, nicdumz, nikratio, ockham-razor, pitrou, proyvind, rcoyner, shirish, strombrg, thedjatclubrock, tshepang, vstinner, ysj.ray
Date 2011-10-12.16:16:50
SpamBayes Score 1.17195e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4E95BD71.6040609@v.loewis.de>
In-reply-to <1318332919.3277.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content
>> Correct. I copied the algorithm from _io.FileIO, under the assumption
>> that there was a reason for not using a simpler O(n log n) doubling
>> strategy. Do you know of any reason for this? Or is it safe to ignore it?
>
> I don't know, but I'd say it's safe to ignore it.

To elaborate: ISTM that it's actually a bug in FileIO. I can imagine
where it's coming from (i.e. somebody feeling that overhead shouldn't
grow unbounded), but I think that's ill-advised - *if* somebody really
produces multi-gigabyte data (and some people eventually will), they
still deserve good performance, and they will be able to afford the
memory overhead (else they couldn't store the actual output, either).

> Generally we use a less-than-doubling strategy, to conserve memory (see
> e.g. bytearray.c).

Most definitely. In case it isn't clear (but it probably is here):
any constant factor > 1.0 will provide amortized linear complexity.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-10-12 16:16:51loewissetrecipients: + loewis, barry, georg.brandl, doko, jcea, amaury.forgeotdarc, arekm, lars.gustaebel, pitrou, vstinner, nadeem.vawda, nicdumz, eric.araujo, Christophe Simonis, rcoyner, proyvind, asvetlov, nikratio, leonov, Garen, ysj.ray, thedjatclubrock, ockham-razor, strombrg, shirish, tshepang, jeremybanks, Nam.Nguyen
2011-10-12 16:16:51loewislinkissue6715 messages
2011-10-12 16:16:50loewiscreate