On Sep 26, 2:31 pm, Bjoern Schliessmann <usenet- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did you check the return value of gc.collect? Also, try using > other "insight" facilities provided by the gc module. gc.collect states it cannot find any unreachable objects. Meanwhile the number of objects the garbage collector has to keep track of keeps increasing.
> You cannot "del" structures, you only "del" names. Objects are > deleted when they are not bound to any names when and if the > garbage collector "wants" to delete them. I understand, but just before I del the name, I ask for the refererres to the object the name indicates, and there's only one object. Since it is a local variable, I think this is logical. This object is a dictionary which contains strings as keys, and heaps as values. This heap consists of tuples. Every string is referenced more than once (that's logical), the heaps are only referenced once. So I would expect those to be destroyed if I destroy the dictionary. I furthermore assume that if I call gc.collect() I force the garbage collector to collect? Even if it wouldn't "want" to collect otherwise? > Be sure to check for cyclic references, they can be a problem for > the GC. I don't see how these could occur. It's basically something like list (of lists possibly) of ints/strings. No list containing itself. I'll see whether I can make a stripped down version which exhibits the same memory growth. Berteun -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
