Size of array

[Mark Smith]

I think you'd have to have a much bigger amount of data to run into  
memory issues on a modern computer. Watching Activity Monitor while  
the script runs, I saw only a small increase (1MB) in the amount of  
active memory being used by Rev. I have 2 gigabytes on this machine,  
but my past experiences were on a machine with only 768MB.

It's hard to say exactly how much memory is used by Revolution arrays  
without knowing the internals of how the data is stored and what the  
'structure overhead' is, but with 300,000 pieces of data, and  
assuming an average length of key to be 10 characters, and an average  
length of data to be 5 characters, that's 3MB + 1.5MB + some amount  
of overhead, so at least 4.5MB. That's not so big in terms of  
machines with at least hundreds of MBs of RAM.

Best,

Mark

On 18 Nov 2007, at 02:35, Shari wrote:

>> In fact (note to shari), depending on your particular application,  
>> you may find it more efficient to have an array with 300 * 1000  
>> elements than to have an array with 300 elements of 1000 items  
>> each. Though rev's chunk expressions are extremely efficient,  
>> accessing the thousandth item in a list is generally going to be  
>> slower than accessing an array element, even in a big array.
>
> Thanks for the tip.  I'm amazed at the size of your array!  
> Refreshing to know it works even that big!
>
> At this juncture, I can arrange the array pretty much anyway I  
> wish. I hadn't considered the above, but it would work just fine  
> that way.
>
> Whatever allows for the fastest access is the goal.
>
> How much memory did your huge array need?
>
> Shari
>
>
> -- 
> WlND0WS and MAClNT0SH shareware games
> BIackjack GoId
> http://www.gypsyware.com
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution