Re: Re: Re: Win32 Apache && File::Basename

Actually, I must confess, I don't really understand what the benchmarks reproted. Obviously I'd want to go for speed as much as possible, but compatability is more important at the moment. So I guess I will use $ENV{'SCRIPT_FILENAME'}.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any idea what MAKES it the slowest?

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d- s:++ a--- C++++ UL P+++>++++ L+ E- W++>+++ N !o K- w+ O---- M-- V-- PS PE Y- PGP t++(+++) 5(+++)++++ X R+@ tv+ b+++ DI+ D- G e->+++ h! r-- y- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Translate

"Weird things happen, get used to it."

Flame ~ Lead Programmer: GMS

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Win32 Apache && File::Basename

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re(4): Win32 Apache && File::Basename by dmmiller2k (Chaplain) on Jan 22, 2002 at 08:11 UTC
Yes it's a tied hash under the hood, which means it's calling perl subroutines for every access, which ultimately have to call the C routines, `getenv()` and/or `putenv()` (as appropriate). See my post, Re(2): Win32 Apache && File::Basename. dmm	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re(4): Win32 Apache && File::Basename by Flame (Deacon) on Jan 22, 2002 at 17:44 UTC
Ahh, I didn't know that it was a tied hash. Learn something new every day :) Thanks "Weird things happen, get used to it." Flame ~ Lead Programmer: GMS	[reply]