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