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 37475BB84 for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 22:32:37 +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 k4FKWaFs016745 for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 22:32:37 +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 WAA15099 for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 22:32:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4FKWa1a016739 for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 22:32:36 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) In-Reply-To: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Damien Doligez Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 22:32:47 +0200 To: caml users X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4468E564.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4468E564.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 arrays:01 bigarrays:01 arrays:01 two-level:01 entail:01 surprising:01 bug:01 stack:01 2006:98 15,:98 wrote:01 doligez:01 doligez:01 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 2006-05-15, at 20:12, akalin@akalin.cx wrote: > I'm running into cases where the 4 MB limit on arrays is starting > to become a problem. Lists are much slower and cause seg faults > for me on the same data set, and Bigarrays are a partial solution > because I'd like to be able to store arbitrary types in arrays (not > just numbers). You could move to a two-level solution (an array of arrays). The code is not hard to write, but it does entail a performance hit, which may or may not matter for your application. > I was greatly surprised when I found out there was such a low limit > on arrays. Is there a reason for this? Will this limit ever be > increased? It will be increased when you get a 64-bit machine ;-) > Also, the fact that using lists crashes for the same data set is > surprising. Is there a similar hard limit for lists, or would this > be a bug? Should I post a test case? I bet my mustache these crashes are stack overflows. -- Damien