Alex Rousskov wrote:
> IMHO, you are trying to solve the right problem with the wrong
> tools: If you are lucky, implementing complex and tricky MemPools will
> save some 32-48 bytes per object while eliminating memory-resident
> StoreEntry and related objects (so that *all* per-object info except,
> maybe, disk "address" is stored on disk until needed)
If you keep any memory resident information, then the issues of malloc
overhead and pointers is even greater compared to the total size the
smaller the per object data is. If you only store 30 bytes of data per
object in memory, then 20 or so overhead memory usage is quite a lot.
/Henrik
Received on Wed Nov 01 2000 - 15:14:51 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:12:54 MST