On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Peter Hickman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 September 2012 09:24, Robert Klemme <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Peter Zotov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> That being said, I won't write number crunching algorithms in Ruby, or work >>> with gigabyte-sized datasets. >> >> Well, even that depends. Sifting through logfiles of that volume is >> almost certainly IO bound and the processing speed can be negligible. >> That of course depends on the processing. > > Being a Ruby shop we try to use Ruby everywhere but when it does come > to grinding through logfiles (some several gigs in size) we had to go > with Perl. The string processing and regex matching was so much > faster. We couldn't get Ruby even close :( Speed was essential, we > couldn't just sit around and wait for the process to complete.
Was that 1.8.* or did you try that with 1.9.* MRI? What kind of processing did you do and how big were the differences? > Right tools for the job I guess. Ruby is fine for everything else so > switching it all over to Perl would not really gain us anything. > Besides if you are a programmer knowing more than one language is a > must. +1 Cheers robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ruby-talk-google group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/ruby-talk-google?hl=en
