That is a good observation! Considering that hash tables to have good performance need to have a fill rate of 70% or lower means that if you try to fit 3.6 GB of data into a dict, your memory requirement will be much higher than 3.6GB.
BTW, this brings a new question. How does Python controls dictionnaries fill rate, hash collisions and tables rehashes? > > I don't have the answer to your question and I'll make a new one: isn't > the overhead (performance and memory) of creating dicts too large to be > used in this scale? > > I'm just speculating, but I *think* that using lists and objects may be > better. > > My 2 cents, > > -- > Felipe. > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
