Paulo da Silva <p_s_d_a_s_i_l_v_a...@netcabo.pt> writes: > What is the best (shortest memory usage) way to store lots of > pathnames in memory
I challenge the premise. Why is “shortest memory usage” your criterion for “best”, here? How have you determined that factors like “easily understandable when reading”, or “using standard Python idioms”, are less important? As for “lots of pathnames”, how many are you expecting? Python's built-in container types are highly optimised for quite large amounts of data. Have you measured an implementation with normal built-in container types with your expected quantity of items, and confirmed that the performance is unacceptable? > Thanks for any suggestion. I would suggest that the assumption you have too much data for Python's built-in container types, is an assumption that should be rigorously tested because it is likely not true. -- \ “We suffer primarily not from our vices or our weaknesses, but | `\ from our illusions.” —Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, 1914–2004 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
