G
Gary Robinson
We have an application which involves storing a lot of strings in RAM. It
would be most convenient to use Unicode strings, but I am wary of doubling
memory usage. My fear is based on the idea that unicode strings may take two
bytes per character in order to accomodate non-ascii characters.
But I don't know whether that's actually how Python strings work internally.
So, my question: Do unicode strings in Python take substantially more memory
than classic python strings or not, assuming the strings are generally 99%
ASCII characters (but not 100%)?
--Gary
--
Putting http://wecanstopspam.org in your email helps it pass through
overzealous spam filters.
Gary Robinson
CEO
Transpose, LLC
(e-mail address removed)
207-942-3463
http://www.transpose.com
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101454
would be most convenient to use Unicode strings, but I am wary of doubling
memory usage. My fear is based on the idea that unicode strings may take two
bytes per character in order to accomodate non-ascii characters.
But I don't know whether that's actually how Python strings work internally.
So, my question: Do unicode strings in Python take substantially more memory
than classic python strings or not, assuming the strings are generally 99%
ASCII characters (but not 100%)?
--Gary
--
Putting http://wecanstopspam.org in your email helps it pass through
overzealous spam filters.
Gary Robinson
CEO
Transpose, LLC
(e-mail address removed)
207-942-3463
http://www.transpose.com
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101454