Re: String concatenation - which is the fastest way ?

Date	2011-08-11 15:46 +0200
From	przemolicc@poczta.fm
Subject	Re: String concatenation - which is the fastest way ?
References	(1 earlier) <CAPTjJmrF0GcVs0onfoCHAbMe38b5iLXgFX1R7G_RXcKxjPH5wQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110810133146.GE5045@host.pgf.com.pl> <j1ub3q$65c$1@dough.gmane.org> <20110811064030.GB4990@host.pgf.com.pl> <CAPTjJmqiiKcT7Zg-XkbrQ4r-keU9+1Kj=+sEwa4xp==2EG-5aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.2179.1313070378.1164.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:59:31AM +0100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 
> What may be the easiest way is to do the select in a single process,
> then partition it and use the Python multiprocessing module to split
> the job into several parts. Then you need only concatenate the handful
> of strings.

This is the way I am going to use.
But what is the best data type to hold so many rows and then operate on them ?

Regards
Przemyslaw Bak (przemol)



















































----------------------------------------------------------------
Zarabiasz 4 tys./miesiac? Damy wiecej!
Sprawdz >> http://linkint.pl/f2a0f

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

Thread

Re: String concatenation - which is the fastest way ? przemolicc@poczta.fm - 2011-08-11 15:46 +0200

csiph-web