On 19 Nov 2013 09:33, "Tim Peters" <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [Antoine] > > Well, sending oceans of tiny integers will also incur many system calls > > and additional synchronization costs, since sending data on a > > multiprocessing Queue has to acquire a semaphore. So it generally > > sounds like a bad idea, IMHO. > > > > That said, I agree with: > >> Since pickle intends to be "the" Python serialization format, it > >> really should try to be friendly for all plausible uses. > > > > I simply don't think adding a fixed 8-byte overhead is actually > > annoying. It's less than the PyObject overhead in 64-bit mode... > > A long-running process can legitimately put billions of items on work > queues, far more than could ever fit in RAM simultaneously. Comparing > this to PyObject overhead makes no sense to me. Neither does the line > of argument "there are several kinds of overheads, so making this > overhead worse too doesn't matter". > > When possible, we should strive not to add overheads that don't repay > their costs. For small pickles, an 8-byte size field doesn't appear > to buy anything. But I appreciate that it costs implementation effort > to avoid producing it in these cases.
Given that cases where the overhead matters can drop back to proto 3 if absolutely necessary, perhaps it's reasonable to just run with the current proposal? Cheers, Nick. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
