🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jr71q$h66@solutions.solon.com> stanr@tiac.net "Stan Ryckman" writes:

>>Better yet: unless memory is really tight, have it double the size.
>>This will set a fairly reasonable upper bound on the number of reallocs
>>you will have to do.
>
>Not necessarily better.  If you're at 40% of your machine's
>physical memory, doubling could be a real performance killer.
>With my suggestion (add some amount to the size and realloc)
>you will rapidly reach the max if the sizes arrive "randomly".
>Any strategy here would involve knowing something about your
>target system, I think, but probably something like
>11*(sz+C)/10 where C is much less than the physical memory
>on your computer would be safer (even a few hundred realloc calls
>rather than a dozen or so shouldn't matter, if the calls
>occur with an "unlucky" distribution of sz values).

My normal approach to this is to start with some reasonable non-zero value
and use:

   sz += sz / X;

where X is typically 2, 4 or 8 depending on the prevailing conditions (small
sop to efficiency).

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------