Re: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

> > # access test for 2d > > ($su, $ss) = times; > > for my $i (0 .. $hashsize-1) { > > $oned{$l1[$i]}{$l2[$i]}++ > > I think you should be operating on %twod here. LOL, thanks. Original poster take note: generating hashes..! base 0.03 0.00 0.03

Re: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:13:49PM -0400, Dave Gray wrote: > On 5/23/05, Peter Rabbitson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 01:40:08PM -0400, Zhenhai Duan wrote: > > > I tried hash (where the members of a group are joined with ":"), and hash > > > of hash. It happended that has

Re: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

Dave Gray wrote: On 5/23/05, Peter Rabbitson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 01:40:08PM -0400, Zhenhai Duan wrote: I tried hash (where the members of a group are joined with ":"), and hash of hash. It happended that hash of hash is slower than single hash. Hash: $gr

Re: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

On 5/23/05, Peter Rabbitson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 01:40:08PM -0400, Zhenhai Duan wrote: > > I tried hash (where the members of a group are joined with ":"), and hash > > of hash. It happended that hash of hash is slower than single hash. > > > > Hash: > > $groups{$g1}

Re: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 01:40:08PM -0400, Zhenhai Duan wrote: > I tried hash (where the members of a group are joined with ":"), and hash > of hash. It happended that hash of hash is slower than single hash. > > Hash: > $groups{$g1} = "$member1:$member2"; > > > Hash of hash > $groups{$g1}{$memb

Re: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

I tried hash (where the members of a group are joined with ":"), and hash of hash. It happended that hash of hash is slower than single hash. Hash: $groups{$g1} = "$member1:$member2"; Hash of hash $groups{$g1}{$member1} = 1; Method 1 is faster, even I need to do a split to get the members. -

RE: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

Zhenhai Duan wrote: : Can anyone give me some suggestions which one is better? Whichever is easiest to read is probably the better solution. Unless you are dealing with a finished program where you need additional speed, let readability be your guide. HTH, Charle

Re: efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

On May 22, Zhenhai Duan said: I am wondering if the performance (time efficiency) of hash of hash is bad. I has this impression from the code I developed. Basically my structure needs to hold the members of different groups. I have different choices: hash of hash $groups{$g1}{$member1} = 1; b

efficiency of hash of hashes/lists

Hi, I am wondering if the performance (time efficiency) of hash of hash is bad. I has this impression from the code I developed. Basically my structure needs to hold the members of different groups. I have different choices: hash: $groups{$g1} = "$member1:$member2:$member3..."; but everytime