On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 06:08:40AM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > On 3/24/12, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote: > > Note that if hash literals are used, then they can be inefficient > > because of the current hack of copying from the current AA (so it > > will involve two copies > > Okie. I was mostly measuring lookups though. I can't accurately > measure writes because I'm taking data from several hundred XML files > (so File IO comes to play), which are then stored to the hashes via > simple string assignments (there's no copying from old hashes to new > ones). After they're stored I do mostly reads 99% of the time.
Hmm OK. So there's another bottleneck somewhere that I don't know about. Maybe hash computation? That area may still have some issues that need fixing. T -- A bend in the road is not the end of the road unless you fail to make the turn. -- Brian White