So I did a bit of benchmarking and attached is the code I used. With
downsizing happening when ma_used * 2 = ma_filled, or the following
for the condition in question:
if (mp-ma_used = n_used || (mp-ma_fill*3 (mp-ma_mask+1)*2
mp-ma_used*2 mp-ma_fill))
I see marginally faster performance
I was taking a look at dictobject.c and realized that the logic
controlling whether a resizedict will occur in
dict_set_item_by_hash_or_entry disallows for the shrinking of a
dictionary. This is contrary to what the comments directly above say:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:31:26 -0400
Micha Gorelick mynameisfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I was taking a look at dictobject.c and realized that the logic
controlling whether a resizedict will occur in
dict_set_item_by_hash_or_entry disallows for the shrinking of a
dictionary. This is contrary to what
Hi Antoine,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:31:26 -0400
Micha Gorelick mynameisfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I was taking a look at dictobject.c and realized that the logic
controlling whether a resizedict will occur in
True, but your example mechanism of getting a shrink event is purely
based on ma_fill. This is happening because your last loop is
increasing ma_fill to the point where it thinks it needs to resize
because of the load factor and then it calculates the new size based
on ma_used. The comment that
