On 2008-05-22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I wanted to know how cautious it is to do something like:
>
> f = file("filename", "rb")
> f.read()
>
> for a possibly huge file. When calling f.read(), and not doing
> anything with the return value, what is Python doing internally? Is it
> loading the content of the file into memory (regardless of whether it
> is discarding it immediately)?I am not a Python interpreter developer, but as user, yes I'd expect that to happen. The method doesn't know you are not doing anything with its return value. > In my case, what I'm doing is sending the return value through a > socket: > > sock.send(f.read()) > > Is that gonna make a difference (memory-wise)? I guess I'm just > concerned with whether I can do a file.read() for any file in the > system in an efficient and memory-kind way, and with low overhead in > general. (For one thing, I'm not loading the contents into a > variable.) Doesn't matter. You allocate a string in which the contents is loaded (the return value of 'f.read()', and you hand over (a reference to) that string to the 'send()' method. Note that memory is allocated by data *values*, not by *variables* in Python (they are merely references to values). > Not that I'm saying that loading a huge file into memory will horribly > crash the system, but it's good to try to program in the safest way > possibly. For example, if you try something like this in the Depends on your system, and your biggest file. At a 32 bit platform, anything bigger than about 4GB (usually already at around 3GB) will crash the program for the simple reason that you are running out of address space to store bytes in. To fix, read and write blocks by specifying a block-size in the 'read()' call. Sincerely, Albert -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
