On 2016-08-22 14:47, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2007/03/23/memory-management-demystifying-3gb/
This looks like a great tip - before I go into the ring with the
client's IT dept (always a tricky exercise) can I just check that
LiveCode does have the IMAGE_FI
Mark,
Thanks so much for this detailed and very useful response. A few quick
follow-up questions.
1)
>
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2007/03/23/memory-management-demystifying-3gb/
This looks like a great tip - before I go into the ring with the client's IT
dept (always a trick
> On 21 Aug 2016, at 2:33 AM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
>
> In that case, what are the several second pauses in the IDE, particularly
> the editor (versions 5 & 7, maybe others)
Do you happen to have bug report numbers for these pauses because they can
probably be fixed? I’ve recently done some work
Most likely the time it takes to layout the text for display - 'typesetting'
(the process that converts a styled string into a list of glyphs and positions)
is a very complicated and time consuming process.
Mark.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 20 Aug 2016, at 17:33, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
>
>> On Fri,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
> LiveCode doesn't use what is generally referred to as 'garbage collection'
> as it generally frees 'things' up as soon as they are no longer referenced.
In that case, what are the several second pauses in the IDE, particularly
the edito
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto <
revolut...@jaedworks.com> wrote:
> I've had ugly crashes with large or complex arrays (that weren't anywhere
> near the 4G limit).
It's not just LiveCode where I trip over obscure bugs . .
That's actually how I found met buy in Cray's Fort
Split would works for simple data sets. This made up example would support
split just fine.
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 8:29 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> Mark you could use the split command here if you don’t mind numerically
> indexed arrays.
>
>> On 20 Aug 2016, at 9:07 AM, Mark Talluto wrote:
Ah! Using repeat for each key is essentially using the keys of an array as a
'proper list' - it is probably the fastest way currently to iterate over a
sequence of strings.
In this case the value of each element in that array is immaterial - so the
performance benefit comes iterating over the k
Mark you could use the split command here if you don’t mind numerically indexed
arrays.
> On 20 Aug 2016, at 9:07 AM, Mark Talluto wrote:
>
> command createArray
> local tListOfRecordIDs, tTableID
>
> put fld "recordID data" into tListOfRecordIDs
> put uuid() into tTableID
>
>
I do not remember how much of a performance boost we got from manipulating long
lists this way, but if memory serves, it was quite beneficial.
This code sample is just something I made up on the fly. Hopefully it
demonstrates the value of this method.
command createArray
local tListOfRecord
Ah, the wonders of paged memory.
-
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Garbage-collection-crashing-on-Windows-tp4707560p4707624.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
With the current implementation of the engine, the only reason using empty is
faster than using pValue is because the latter requires a variable lookup, the
former is a constant.
What are you using sValueCache for?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 19 Aug 2016, at 19:37, Mark Talluto wrote:
>
>
>> O
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> command shareAndStoreKey @xArray, pKey, pValue
> set the caseSensitive to true -- this is assuming your values are
> sensitive to case
> if pValue is not among the keys of sValueCache then
> put pValue into sValueCache[p
Hi Ben,
When I got to the end of this email I remembered something quite
pertinent - you mentioned that the limit you were hitting was 2Gb... One
thing to check is that the install of Windows you are running on cannot
be poked to actually raise this limit to 3Gb:
https://blogs.technet.micros
On 18/08/2016 19:09, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:
At 3:28 PM +0100 8/18/2016, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
The real problem is that the script was written originally 13 years ago, and
the basic architecture was to load everything into large global arrays for
cleanliness.
I've had ugly crashes with lar
At 3:28 PM +0100 8/18/2016, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
The real problem is that the script was written originally 13 years
ago, and the basic architecture was to load everything into large
global arrays for cleanliness.
I've had ugly crashes with large or complex arrays (that weren't
anywhere nea
Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> The real problem is that the script was written originally 13 years
> ago, and the basic architecture was to load everything into large
> global arrays for cleanliness. Over that period, the size of the data
> has multiplied over the years by 1-2 orders of magnitude
J
Or you can probably delete the whole variable directly.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Mike Bonner wrote:
> If you switch to using an array key with your global variable, and then "
> delete global gArray[yourkey]" it should release the memory.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ben Rubins
If you switch to using an array key with your global variable, and then "
delete global gArray[yourkey]" it should release the memory.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> Thanks Monte, Richard.
>
> As it happens this script isn't doing with properties, which is good (or
> b
Thanks Monte, Richard.
As it happens this script isn't doing with properties, which is good (or bad
since that potentially easy fix isn't available to me!) but that's a useful
tip to remember. I've already moved some very large functions to passing by
reference.
The real problem is that the
Ben Rubinstein wrote:
Please refresh my memory: is there any way to cause/allow garbage to be
collected without ending all script running?
I have an app which process large amounts of data. It runs fine on Mac, but on
Windows intermittently (but not frequently as the application data source,
whi
There are certainly a number of tricks you can use to reduce the memory usage
of your app. One interesting one I learnt recently after an internal discussion
was because LiveCode copies values that have multiple reference when they are
mutated and custom properties are arrays linked to the objec
Please refresh my memory: is there any way to cause/allow garbage to be
collected without ending all script running?
I have an app which process large amounts of data. It runs fine on Mac, but on
Windows intermittently (but not frequently as the application data source,
which fluctuates, is gr
23 matches
Mail list logo
