On 25/02/15 15:33, Chris Angelico wrote:
It's even worse than that. Unless you have a list of 2**49 references to the same few objects, you're going to need to have some actual content for each one. The absolute best you could do is to sort integers, which would take 32 bytes each [1]; if you're sorting strings, they'll be 90 bytes each, so the integers are our best bet. So add another *five* powers of two to the RAM requirements.
In that case you also need to add the PyObject_HEAD overhead for each object. ;-)
Sturla -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
