On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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.
Yes, unless the storage is just a simple array allocated once and for
all.
Alex.
Received on Wed Nov 01 2000 - 15:17:32 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:12:54 MST