I think reading and writing fasl should be faster, but don't expect the format to be compatible across Racket versions.
Or, if you know some super-efficient encoding for your data, wrap it in a new struct type and implement your own serialization. > On Sep 14, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Jonathan Schuster <schus...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > I have some large (several GB worth) sets of values I'd like to persist > across debugging runs of a program, rather than recomputing them each time. > I'm currently doing this with the built-in "read" and "write", but is there a > more efficient method, especially for reading the data back in? > > I could of course come up with some kind of custom encoding, but that's > likely not worth the effort in my case, so I'm wondering if there's any > general purpose method already available in Racket (or in a package). > > Thanks, > Jon > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
