On 21 Ott, 17:19, Rolf Wester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have the problem that with long running Python scripts (many loops)
> memory consumption increases until the script crashes. I used the
> following small script to understand what might happen:
>
> import gc
>
> print len(gc.get_o
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 5:19 pm, Rolf Wester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have the problem that with long running Python scripts (many loops)
>> memory consumption increases until the script crashes. I used the
>> follo
On Oct 21, 5:19 pm, Rolf Wester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have the problem that with long running Python scripts (many loops)
> memory consumption increases until the script crashes. I used the
> following small script to understand what might happen:
>
AFAIK, python uses malloc behi
On Jun 20, 4:48 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I am using Python to process particle data from a physics simulation.
> There are about 15 MB of data associated with each simulation, but
> there are many simulations. I read the data from each simulation into
> Numpy arrays and
I am using Python to process particle data from a physics simulation.
There are about 15 MB of data associated with each simulation, but
there are many simulations. I read the data from each simulation into
Numpy arrays and do a simple calculation on them that involves a few
eigenvalues of small m
Le Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:30:35 +0100,
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Jonathan Ballet wrote:
>
> >> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-doesnt-python-release-the-memory-when-i-delete-a-large-object
> >
> > Is it still true with Python 2.5 ?
> >
> > I mean, [http://evanjones.ca/python-memory
Klaas wrote:
> I think floats use obmalloc so I'm slightly surprised you don't see
> differences.
as noted in the FAQ I just posted a link to, floats also use a free list
(using pretty much identical code to that used for integers).
see comments in Objects/intobject.c (quoted below) and
Object
velotron wrote:
> On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, "Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was referring specifically to abominations like range(100)
>
> However, there are plenty of valid reasons to allocate huge lists of
> integers.
I'm sure there are some; I doubt there are plenty. Care to name a few?
Jonathan Ballet wrote:
>> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-doesnt-python-release-the-memory-when-i-delete-a-large-object
>
> Is it still true with Python 2.5 ?
>
> I mean, [http://evanjones.ca/python-memory.html] should fix this
> behaviour, doesn't it ?
not really -- that change just means that Pyt
Le Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:46:58 +0100,
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-doesnt-python-release-the-memory-when-i-delete-a-large-object
>
>
>
Is it still true with Python 2.5 ?
I mean, [http://evanjones.ca/python-memory.html] should fix this
behaviour, do
velotron wrote:
> x=range(1000)
> x=None
>
> The problem exists for floats too, so for a less contrived example:
>
> x=[random.weibullvariate(7.0,2.0) for i in xrange(1000)]
> x=None
>
> Both leave the Python process bloated in my environment. Is this
> problem a good candidate for th
(hello group)
On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, "Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was referring specifically to abominations like range(100)
However, there are plenty of valid reasons to allocate huge lists of
integers. This issue has been worked on:
http://evanjones.ca/python-memory.html
http://eva
placid wrote:
> Actually i am executing that code snippet and creating BeautifulSoup
> objects in the range() (now xrange() ) code block.
Right; I was referring specifically to abominations like
range(100), not looping over an incrementing integer.
-Mike
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
Klaas wrote:
> placid wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Just wondering when i run the following code;
> >
> > for i in range(100):
> > print i
> >
> > the memory usage of Python spikes and when the range(..) block finishes
> > execution the memory usage does not drop down. Is there a way of
> >
placid wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering when i run the following code;
>
> for i in range(100):
> print i
>
> the memory usage of Python spikes and when the range(..) block finishes
> execution the memory usage does not drop down. Is there a way of
> freeing this memory that range(..) a
William Heymann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:42, placid wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Just wondering when i run the following code;
> >
> > for i in range(100):
> > print i
> >
> > the memory usage of Python spikes and when the range(..) block finishes
> > execution the memory usa
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:42, placid wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering when i run the following code;
>
> for i in range(100):
> print i
>
> the memory usage of Python spikes and when the range(..) block finishes
> execution the memory usage does not drop down. Is there a way of
> f
On 7 Nov 2006 21:42:31 -0800, placid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering when i run the following code;
>
> for i in range(100):
> print i
>
the problem of that is that all the memory is used by the list
returned by range which wont be freed until the for loop exits
tr
Hi All,
Just wondering when i run the following code;
for i in range(100):
print i
the memory usage of Python spikes and when the range(..) block finishes
execution the memory usage does not drop down. Is there a way of
freeing this memory that range(..) allocated?
I found this documen
19 matches
Mail list logo
