Message217412
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
ezio.melotti, nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, skip.montanaro, tiwilliam |
| Date |
2014年04月28日.20:08:46 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAH_1eM3gHRMrLi2Z4u=J0W2Wjh3cptWY4huJWQNEFYRvTCp9kQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<CANc-5UynFsAaFWz94xUMvz6vvFvWTGR6gDsG8MaP58U9pwtPMA@mail.gmail.com> |
| Content |
That could make sense, dunno.
Note that the bz2 module uses a harcoded 8K value.
Note that the buffer size should probably be passed to the open() call.
Also, the allocation is quite peculiar: it uses an exponential buffer
size, starting at a tiny value:
202 # Starts small, scales exponentially
203 self.min_readsize = 100
In short, I think the overall buffering should be rewritten :-) |
|