David, > ...I wanted to know how I might go about having judy only store part > of the array (or arrays, depending on which is less expensive, memory > wise).
Please elaborate on what you mean by "store part". The Judy library is pretty memory-efficient for the kinds of mappings it supports, but has no offline capability. It's something I studied and wrote about long ago, how perhaps we might store and recall an entire array efficiently say on a disk drive, but it wasn't trivial (lots of memory fixups would be required upon restore) and never implemented beyond the "batch" code I wrote. Cheers, Alan Silverstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Judy-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
