On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:08 PM, john skaller <[email protected]
> wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2010, at 9:33 AM, Jim Lloyd wrote:
> > Yes, de-allocation is one of the big motivating factors for us, primarily
> in our long-lived daemon applications.
>
> If you're doing individual de-allocations instead of whole-pool
> deallocations, why are you using pools?
> [I mean why do you want to use pools :]
>
> We're not yet using pools and currently we don't do individual
de-allocations. One of our uses of Judy is a symbol table, i.e. a
bidirectional mapping between strings and tokens. This table only grows.
This is fine in our batch applications but is an issue in our long-lived
daemons where it is an apparent slow leak. We can delete the entire table
and start fresh but we need a fast way to do this. Even if we could somehow
make individual de-allocations fast, I'm concerned about heap fragmentation.
A separate pool for the symbol table would address both problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotusphere 2011
Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how
to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment
to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d
_______________________________________________
Judy-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
