Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files

X-Received	by 10.68.227.9 with SMTP id rw9mr546501pbc.12.1447842696137; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:31:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Received	by 10.50.8.68 with SMTP id p4mr46259iga.8.1447842696101; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Path	csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!i2no4682950igv.0!news-out.google.com!f6ni6138igq.0!nntp.google.com!i2no4682945igv.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Date	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:31:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To	<mailman.406.1447837229.16136.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To	groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info	glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.249.183.252; posting-account=ZxV-SgoAAADbox0Kt5vMsxYlC8niBQCt
NNTP-Posting-Host	195.249.183.252
References	<463ad93c-0186-4911-9cd1-92d97b9dc87b@googlegroups.com> <mailman.387.1447769670.16136.python-list@python.org> <54330891-6568-4469-93ae-7a7825961500@googlegroups.com> <mailman.392.1447773612.16136.python-list@python.org> <420ec4e9-6af6-49bd-a9f4-8b47ef1f136e@googlegroups.com> <n2fip9$ajg$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.406.1447837229.16136.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent	G2/1.0
MIME-Version	1.0
Message-ID	<f2a42caa-2cde-455b-83bb-3beef8e4c52f@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files
From	andrea.gavana@gmail.com
Injection-Date	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:31:36 +0000
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding	quoted-printable
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:98956

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi,

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 10:00:43 AM UTC+1, Nagy László Zsolt wrote:
> > Perhaps there is a size threshold? You could experiment with different block 
> > sizes in the following f.read() replacement:
> >
> > def read_chunked(f, size=2**20):
> >     read = functools.partial(f.read, size)
> >     return "".join(iter(read, ""))
> >
> Under win32 platform, my experience is that the fastest way to read
> binary file from disk is the mmap module. You should try that too.

Thank you for your suggestion. I have tried that now, and with my naive approach I have done this:

    start = time.time()
    fid = open(filename, 'r+b')
    strs = mmap.mmap(fid.fileno(), 0, access=mmap.ACCESS_READ)[:]
    end = time.time()
    print 'mmap.read time:', end-start

And it takes about 2.7 seconds. Not a bad improvement :-) . Unfortunately, when the file is on a network drive, all the other approaches ran at around 25-30 seconds loading time, while the mmap one clocks at 110 seconds :-(

Andrea.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files andrea.gavana@gmail.com - 2015-11-17 05:26 -0800
  Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-11-17 15:14 +0100
    Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files andrea.gavana@gmail.com - 2015-11-17 06:20 -0800
      Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 02:20 +1100
        Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files andrea.gavana@gmail.com - 2015-11-17 07:31 -0800
          Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-11-17 16:57 +0100
            Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files andrea.gavana@gmail.com - 2015-11-17 08:31 -0800
              Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-11-17 18:20 +0100
          Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files Nagy László Zsolt <gandalf@shopzeus.com> - 2015-11-18 10:00 +0100
            Re: cPickle.load vs. file.read+cPickle.loads on large binary files andrea.gavana@gmail.com - 2015-11-18 02:31 -0800

csiph-web