Bottleneck? By that I assume you are referring to processing speed.
No. We're talking about memory usage. How did you determine the link parsing porting, is responsible for your 200MB process size? And that a solution that incrementally parses the HTML is the answer to reducing memory usage?
In reply to Re^5: Are there any memory-efficient web scrapers?
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Are there any memory-efficient web scrapers?
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |