[Gambas-user] array size limitations relative to available RAM and swap space

[kevinfishburne]

Doriano Blengino wrote:
> 
> Probably there is some bug here, but anyway I would use some other mean 
> to achieve the goal.
> ...
> If you really have 65536*65536 cells, all alive together, you could use 
> a binary file on disk. Disk caching will speed up things, perhaps better 
> than fake ram swapped in/out from disk.
> 
> If you don't have all the cells live together, you could use an 
> association, and only keep in ram the cell along with its "coordinates".
> ...
> If you insist on the ram approach, then a static array would consume 
> less memory, if it is still supported.
> 

Good advice. I think I'm going to be forced to use a binary file because all
the data is interdependent. I'm basically applying the "diamond square"
algorithm to the cells (which reminds me I need 65537x65537 shorts, not
65536x65536).

Hopefully, if that was a bug, it will get ironed out because it wasn't
handled terribly gracefully by GAMBAS.

-----
Kevin Fishburne, Eight Virtues
www:  http://sales.eightvirtues.com http://sales.eightvirtues.com 
e-mail:  mailto:sales at ...1887... sales at ...1887... 
phone: (770) 853-6271
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/array-size-limitations-relative-to-available-RAM-and-swap-space-tp27268616p27278998.html
Sent from the gambas-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.