http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-December/198141.html
wherein Tim gently corrects my brash guess that Python lists are pointer-linked. The example's linearly-constructed list is allocated by doubling storage, copying & freeing (cf realloc). The result that the process virtual memory is twice the size of the list, more or less, with the freed predecessor chunks on the process heap, but not released to the operating system. This only SEEMS to use as much memory as pointer-linked elements would do. Hope this URL helps. -Bob "Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Can somebody help me please? I've spent a fruitless > hour googling with no luck. > > I'm discussing memory allocation techniques with > somebody, and I'm trying to find a quote from -- I > think -- Tim Peters where he discusses the way Python > allocates memory when you append to lists. In basic > terms, he says that every time you try to append to a > list that is already full, Python doubles the size of > the list. This wastes no more than 50% of the memory > needed for that list, but has various advantages -- and > I'm damned if I can remember exactly what those > advantages were. > > Can anyone point me in the right direction? > > Thanks, > > > -- > Steven. > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
