Message240514
| Author |
daveroundy |
| Recipients |
brett.cannon, daveroundy, eric.snow, ncoghlan, pitrou |
| Date |
2015年04月12日.00:20:57 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CABVG1pCao+6rm9T-S-7RJDkzGznf3__W1Moufrhwe3JZXDdL=w@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1428789124.94.0.744606822294.issue23916@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
My tests involved 8 million files on an ext4 file system. I expect that
accounts for the difference. It's true that it's an excessive number of
files, and maybe the best option is to ignore the problem.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:52 PM Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:
>
> Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
>
> As for your question:
>
> > If the script
> > directory is normally the last one in the search path couldn't you
> > skip the
> > listing of that directory without losing your optimization?
>
> Given the way the code is architected, that would complicate things
> significantly. Also it would introduce a rather unexpected discrepancy.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23916>
> _______________________________________
> |
|