From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92CCBB9B for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:10:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9EAAX19023947 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:10:33 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA14282 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:10:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (furbychan.cocan.org [80.68.91.176]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9EAAVvj023934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:10:32 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1EQMmz-0004aN-00; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:49 +0100 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:49 +0100 To: "Seth J. Fogarty" Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Memory usage/ garbage collection question Message-ID: <20051014102749.GA15524@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <20051014094948.GA11039@furbychan.cocan.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 434F8419.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 434F8417.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 garbage:01 iterating:01 garbage:01 iteration:01 ocamlopt:01 notepad:01 ...:98 unnamed:98 wrote:01 binding:02 guess:02 ought:03 generated:05 fri:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:58:59AM -0500, Seth J. Fogarty wrote: > I do not see why iterating through a list that consumed a lot of > memory should (innately) cause you to thrash. What is thrashing? > access to the disk? Garbage collection? That's where I'm not really sure, except that it is observably thrashing. Since it's a simple iteration, I guess that would implicate the GC? > No, because you have bound rows to a name. Now, I believe if rows is > returned by a function, and is NOT bound by name in that function, it > can be garbage collected. I.E. Ah OK ... I'm interested though: why does binding a value to a name cause problems? Surely at this level (ocamlopt generated code) there ought to be no difference between a named value and an unnamed one? Rich. -- Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd. Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com Team Notepad - intranets and extranets for business - http://team-notepad.com