Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
> > > I know about tied hashes - Thanks Damien for your excellent book! - but
> > > there is a performance penalty. How big is this penalty? Is it worth
> > > using tied hashes? Versus an array of hash refs?
> >
> > They're a lot slower than normal data structures, or even normal object
> > methods. Whether that slowness will be noticeable next to the slowness of
> > accessing a database is questionable. There were a few benchmarks posted
> > to this list that you could dig out of the archive.
I knew they were slower. I'll look for the benchmarks in the archives.
Unless I find something really cool that justifies tie()ing, I'm just
going to go withmy original idea. The DB already gives me the order I
want - I just need to transfer it. But I really like the ideas behind
tie'ing things. You can do some really neat stuff behind the scenes. :-)
> If you are going to run it with apache benchmarks try a fresh version of
> Apache::Benchmark
> http://stason.org/works/modules/Apache-Benchmark-0.01.tar.gz
>
> ... just plugged this note about Apache::Benchmark so you'd go grab and
> try the package before I release it...
Nothing like a good plug. ;-)
--
Drew Taylor
Vialogix Communications, Inc.
501 N. College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
704 370 0550
http://www.vialogix.com/
