Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #31790
| References | <76D03718A3233B4C8CC236C169B535B5A23E063E45@AUSP01VMBX08.collaborationhost.net> <9oi388heolcjt1es6em5f9c93q73cranbh@invalid.netcom.com> <76D03718A3233B4C8CC236C169B535B5A23E063F6D@AUSP01VMBX08.collaborationhost.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-20 13:15 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Python does not take up available physical memory |
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2548.1350699319.27098.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Pradipto Banerjee <pradipto.banerjee@adainvestments.com> wrote: > Dennis, > > 1. Yes, .readlines() work where .read() fails. Thanks for the suggestion - this has really given a big boost to the size of the data I can read. If at all possible, consider reading the file iteratively and retaining only the current line. You say you need to "compare one line versus another" - are you able, for instance, to sort the file (externally; I think every OS these days will have a sort utility that can handle files >RAM) and then compare the current line against a small amount of retained state? This sort (pun intended) of trick can not only get you past the limit, it will often improve running time enormously too. ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Python does not take up available physical memory Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-20 13:15 +1100
csiph-web