Re^3: Store larg hashes more efficiently (10e6 md5s in 260MB at 4盜 per lookup)

Finally, it might be interesting to play with masking different amount of bits to see the space-saving vs. lookup time tradeoffs for different degrees of sparseness.

By all means; play.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^3: Store larg hashes more efficiently (10e6 md5s in 260MB at 4盜 per lookup)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Store larg hashes more efficiently (10e6 md5s in 260MB at 4盜 per lookup) by puterboy (Scribe) on Feb 27, 2013 at 03:28 UTC
I would be happy to play... But before that I want to make sure that my two suggestions for improvement are valid since I am at best a Perl neophyte...	[reply]
Re^5: Store larg hashes more efficiently (10e6 md5s in 260MB at 4盜 per lookup) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 27, 2013 at 10:47 UTC
I have my own projects to take care of. I've supplied you with code that measures both; and you have the problem. The only way for either of us to determine whether your suggestions are improvements; is to try them: do they make lookups slower or faster; or use more or less memory? If I do it, you remain a neophyte. If you do it, you become less of a neophyte. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]
Re^6: Store larg hashes more efficiently (10e6 md5s in 260MB at 4盜 per lookup) by puterboy (Scribe) on Feb 28, 2013 at 05:34 UTC
I wasn't suggesting you try it for me - I just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally misunderstanding your code and go off on a wild goose chase...	[reply]