> > Well... 63 bytes per item for very short unicode strings... Is there > > any way to do better than that? Perhaps some compact unicode objects? > > There is a certain price you pay for having full-feature Python objects.
Are there any *compact* Python objects? Optimized for compactness? > What are you trying to accomplish anyway? Maybe the array module can be > of some help. Or numpy? Ultimately a dict that can store ~20,000,000 entries: (u'short string' : (int, int, int, int, int, int, int)). -- Regards, Dmitry -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
