On Jan 28, 5:21 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de...@nospam.web.de> wrote: > ocsch...@gmail.com schrieb: > > > > > Hi, all. > > > I have an application that that creates, manipulates, and finally > > archives on disk 10^6 instances of an object that in CS/DB terms is > > best described as a relation. > > > It has 8 members, all of them common Python datatypes. 6 of these are > > set once and then not modified. 2 are modified around 4 times before > > the instance's archving. Large collections (of small lists) of these > > objects are created, iterated through, and sorted using any and all of > > the 8 members as sorting keys. > > > It neither has nor needs custom methods. > > > I used a simple dictionary to create the application prototype. Now I > > need to speed things up. > > I first tried changing to a new style class, with __slots__, __init__, > > __getstate__& __setstate__ (for pickling) and was shocked to see > > things SLOW down over dictionaries. > > > So of these options, where should I go first to satisfy my need for > > speed? > > > 0. Back to dict > > 1. old style class > > 2. new style class > > 3. new style class, with __slots__, with or without some nuance I'm > > missing. > > 4. tuple, with constants to mark the indices > > 5. namedTuple > > 6. other... > > Use a database? Or *maybe* a C-extension wrapped by ctypes. > > Diez
I can't port the entire app to be a stored database procedure. ctypes, maybe. I just find it odd that there's no quick answer on the fastest way in Python to implement a mapping in this context. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
