In article <786181.46665...@web110610.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
William wrote:
> I have a question. Suppose I do the following:
>
> def myfunc(a,b):
> return a+b
>
> myfunc2=myfunc
>
> is there anyway to find all of the references to myfunc? That is, can I find
> out all of the functions that
I have a question. Suppose I do the following:
def myfunc(a,b):
return a+b
myfunc2=myfunc
is there anyway to find all of the references to myfunc? That is, can I find
out all of the functions that may be aliased to myfunc?
second question:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(a,b):
s
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> If a process is known to be CPU bound, I think it is typical
> practice to "nice" the process... Lowering its priority by direct
> action.
Yes, but one usually only bothers with this for long-running
tasks. It's a nicety, not an absolute requirement.
It seems lik
Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Think VMS was the most applicable for that behavior... Haven't seen
> any dynamic priorities on the UNIX/Linux/Solaris systems I've
> encountered...
Dynamic priority scheduling is extremely common in Unixen today (and has
been for many ye
John Nagle wrote:
> C gets to
> run briefly, drains out the pipe, and blocks. P gets to run,
> fills the pipe, and blocks. The compute-bound thread gets to run,
> runs for a full time quantum, and loses the CPU to C. Wash,
> rinse, repeat.
I thought that unix schedulers were usually a bit more
Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
> On Jul 2, 10:57 pm, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I have found the stop-and-go between two processes on the same machine
>leads to very poor throughput. By stop-and-go, I mean the producer and
>consumer are constantly getting on and off of th
"Karthik Gurusamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|If all you had is just two processes, P and C and the amount of data
|flowing is less (say on the order of 10's of buffer-size ... e.g. 20
|times 4k), *a lot* may not be right quantifier.
Have pipe buffer sizes real
On Jul 3, 2:33 pm, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the problem does not require two way communication, which is
> > typical of a producer-consumer, it is a lot faster to allow P to fully
> > run before C is started.
>
> Why do you say it's *a lot* faster. I find that it is a lit
> If the problem does not require two way communication, which is
> typical of a producer-consumer, it is a lot faster to allow P to fully
> run before C is started.
Why do you say it's *a lot* faster. I find that it is a little faster.
The only additional overhead from switching forth and back be
On Jul 2, 10:57 pm, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I have found the stop-and-go between two processes on the same machine
> >>> leads to very poor throughput. By stop-and-go, I mean the producer and
> >>> consumer are constantly getting on and off of the CPU since the pipe
> >>>
Steve Holden wrote:
> Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 12:38 pm, dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I have found the stop-and-go between two processes on the same machine
>> leads to very poor throughput. By stop-and-go, I mean the producer and
>> consumer are constantly
dlomsak wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>>dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>knowledge of the topic to help. If the above are not possible but you
>>>have a really good idea for zipping large amounts of data from one
>>>program to another, I'd like to hear it.
> Well, I was using the regular
>>> I have found the stop-and-go between two processes on the same machine
>>> leads to very poor throughput. By stop-and-go, I mean the producer and
>>> consumer are constantly getting on and off of the CPU since the pipe
>>> gets full (or empty for consumer). Note that a producer can't run at
>>>
if both the search server and the web server/script are in the same
computer you could use POSH(http://poshmodule.sourceforge.net/) for
memory sharing or if you are in UNIX you can use mmap.
this is way faster than using sockets and doesn`t require the
serialization/deserialization step.
--
http:
On Jul 2, 6:32 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 3:01 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
> >>> On Jul 1, 12:38 pm, dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >>> I have found the stop-and-go between two p
Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
> On Jul 2, 3:01 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 12:38 pm, dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I have found the stop-and-go between two processes on the same machine
>>> leads to very poor throughput. By sto
On Jul 2, 3:01 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 12:38 pm, dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I have found the stop-and-go between two processes on the same machine
> > leads to very poor throughput. By stop-and-go, I mean the producer
Karthik Gurusamy wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:38 pm, dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
> I have found the stop-and-go between two processes on the same machine
> leads to very poor throughput. By stop-and-go, I mean the producer and
> consumer are constantly getting on and off of the CPU since t
On Jul 1, 12:38 pm, dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses folks. I'm starting to think that there is
> merely an inefficiency in how I'm using the sockets. The expensive
> part of the program is definitely the socket transfer because I timed
> each part of the routine indivi
Okay, Im back at work and got to put some of these suggestions to use.
cPickle is doing a great job a hiking up the serialization rate and
cutting out the +=data helped a lot too. The entire search process now
for this same data set is down to about 4-5 seconds from pressing
'search' to having the
dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> search and return takes a fraction of a second. For a large return (in
> this case 21,000 records - 8.3 MB) is taking 18 seconds. 15 of those
> seconds are spent sending the serialized results from the server to
> the client. I did a little bit of a blind
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > I guess now I'd like to know what are good practices in general to get
> > better results with sockets on the same local machine. I'm only
> > instantiating two sockets total right now - one client and one server,
> > and the transfer is taking 15 seconds for only 8.3MB.
> I guess now I'd like to know what are good practices in general to get
> better results with sockets on the same local machine. I'm only
> instantiating two sockets total right now - one client and one server,
> and the transfer is taking 15 seconds for only 8.3MB.
It would be good if you had sh
Thanks for the responses folks. I'm starting to think that there is
merely an inefficiency in how I'm using the sockets. The expensive
part of the program is definitely the socket transfer because I timed
each part of the routine individually. For a small return, the whole
search and return takes a
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If this is a Linux server, it might be possible to use the SCM_RIGHTS
> > message to pass the socket between processes.
>
> I very much doubt that the OP's problem is what he thinks it is,
> i.e. that copying over a local TCP connection is what mak
> If this is a Linux server, it might be possible to use the SCM_RIGHTS
> message to pass the socket between processes.
I very much doubt that the OP's problem is what he thinks it is,
i.e. that copying over a local TCP connection is what makes his
application slow.
> That would require a
> patch
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. The CGI script has a file handle, and it is not possible to pass
> a file handle to a different process.
>
> > If there is not a good Pythonic way to do the above, I am open to
> > mixing in some C to do the job if that is what it takes.
>
> No,
> b) use a single Python server (possibly shared with the database
>process), and connect this to Apache through the
>reverse proxy protocol.
Following up to myself: Instead of using a reverse proxy, you can
also implement the FastCGI protocol in the server.
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mai
> I have searched a good deal about this topic and have not found
> any good information yet. It seems that the people asking all want
> something a bit different than what I want and also don't divulge much
> about their intentions. I wish to improve the rate of data transfer
> between two pyt
Paul Rubin wrote:
> dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > knowledge of the topic to help. If the above are not possible but you
> > have a really good idea for zipping large amounts of data from one
> > program to another, I'd like to hear it.
>
> One cheesy thing you might try is serializing wi
dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> knowledge of the topic to help. If the above are not possible but you
> have a really good idea for zipping large amounts of data from one
> program to another, I'd like to hear it.
One cheesy thing you might try is serializing with marshal rather than
pickle.
On 6/30/07, dlomsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is not a good Pythonic way to do the above, I am open to
> mixing in some C to do the job if that is what it takes. I apologize
> if this topic has been brought up many times before but hopefully I
> have stated my intentions clearly enough
Hello,
I have searched a good deal about this topic and have not found
any good information yet. It seems that the people asking all want
something a bit different than what I want and also don't divulge much
about their intentions. I wish to improve the rate of data transfer
between two python
parameters become
>> method parameters. See http://wiki.python.org/moin/WebFrameworks
>
> Okay will look. I have checked out cherrypy, but it does not seem to
> support direct object references, i.e. the server-side objects are
> really stateless and all calls to an object method wil
looking it up comes in.
>
> This is more or less what several web frameworks do. You publish
> objects; URLs are mapped to method objects; URL parameters become
> method parameters. See http://wiki.python.org/moin/WebFrameworks
>
Okay will look. I have checked out cherrypy, b
En Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:47:10 -0300, Martin Drautzburg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> I was thinking that it would be nice if a web application could talk to
> real objects. The client side does not need to know the internals of an
> object, it acts as a "view" for server-side models. All it has
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> En Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:07:27 -0300, Martin Drautzburg
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
>> Is it possible to convert an object into a string that identifies the
>> object in a way, so it can later be looked up by this string.
>> Technically this should be possible, beca
On Apr 22, 5:07 am, Martin Drautzburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> <__main__.Foo instance at 0xb7cfb6ac>
>
> But how can I look up the real object,
> when I only have this string?
>
You can't because that identifies the instance with an address, and
pointers are not part of the python language.
> Is it possible to convert an object into a string that identifies the
> object in a way, so it can later be looked up by this string.
> Technically this should be possible, because things like
>
> <__main__.Foo instance at 0xb7cfb6ac>
>
> say everything about an object. But how can I look up the
En Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:07:27 -0300, Martin Drautzburg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Is it possible to convert an object into a string that identifies the
> object in a way, so it can later be looked up by this string.
> Technically this should be possible, because things like
>
> <__main__.Foo
Martin Drautzburg wrote:
> Is it possible to convert an object into a string that identifies the
> object in a way, so it can later be looked up by this string.
> Technically this should be possible, because things like
>
> <__main__.Foo instance at 0xb7cfb6ac>
>
> say everything about an object.
Is it possible to convert an object into a string that identifies the
object in a way, so it can later be looked up by this string.
Technically this should be possible, because things like
<__main__.Foo instance at 0xb7cfb6ac>
say everything about an object. But how can I look up the real object
DrConti wrote:
> Hi Bruno, hi folks!
> thank you very much for your advices.
> I didn't know about the property function.
> I learned also quite a lot now about "references".
> Ok everything is a reference but you can't get a reference of a
> reference...
>
> I saw a lot of variations on how to s
Hi Bruno, hi folks!
thank you very much for your advices.
I didn't know about the property function.
I learned also quite a lot now about "references".
Ok everything is a reference but you can't get a reference of a
reference...
I saw a lot of variations on how to solve this problem, but I find
a
DrConti wrote:
> I need a variable alias ( what in other languages you would call "a
> pointer" (c) or "a reference" (perl))
Or, you think you need it.
> I read some older mail articles and I found that the offcial position
> about that was that variable referencing wasn't implemented because
> i
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:33:24 -0800, DrConti wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Python developer community,
>>I'm quite new to Python, so perhaps my question is well known and the
>>answer too.
>>
>>I need a variable alias ( what in other languages you would call "a
>>pointer" (c) or "a r
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:33:24 -0800, DrConti wrote:
> Dear Python developer community,
> I'm quite new to Python, so perhaps my question is well known and the
> answer too.
>
> I need a variable alias ( what in other languages you would call "a
> pointer" (c) or "a reference" (perl))
Others have
ttribute value, not the reference.
1/ it's not an assignement
2/ it does not store the attribute "value", it stores the reference to
the object the attribute is bound to. When you later rebind the
attribute, it only impact this binding - there's no reason it should
impact
DrConti wrote:
> class ObjectClass:
> """ Test primary Key assignment """
>
> if __name__ == "__main__":
> ObjectClassInstantiated=ObjectClass()
> ObjectClassInstantiated.AnAttribute='First PK Elem'
> ObjectClassInstantiated.AnotherOne='Second PK Elem'
> ObjectClassIn
Felipe Almeida Lessa schrieb:
> Em Sáb, 2006-03-25 às 21:33 -0800, DrConti escreveu:
> [snip]
> > There was also a suggestion to write a real problem where referencing
> > is really needed.
> > I have one...:
> [snap]
>
> There are loads of discussions about the code you wrote... but... isn't
> ba
Em Sáb, 2006-03-25 às 21:33 -0800, DrConti escreveu:
[snip]
> There was also a suggestion to write a real problem where referencing
> is really needed.
> I have one...:
[snap]
There are loads of discussions about the code you wrote... but... isn't
bad practice to put the same data in two places? O
st.py
['First PK Elem', 'Second PK Elem']
['First PK Elem', 'Second PK Elem']
--> wrong! It should write ['First PK Elem Changed', 'Second PK Elem']
i.e. the assgnment
ObjectClassInstantiated.Identifier.append(ObjectClassInstantiated.A
52 matches
Mail list logo
