You have installed it by simply copying over the .pm file into your perl libraries directory. Thats not how it works. You need a C compiler, and a make tool (most likely nmake on Win32). If you're a beginner, it's probably a lot easier for you to type:
C:\> ppm
ppm> install Storable
...
ppm> quit
And it will install a pre-compiled binary for you.
Matt. | [reply]
[d/l] |
Thanks. I don't have a compiler or a make tool. I have not installed many modules - one or two - and have not had this problem before. I'll start looking.
| [reply] |
If you are using ActiveState Perl, use their PPM installer.
ActiveState has precompiled binaries for most the common
ones, hence you will not need a compiler to install.
<cite>Just a tongue-tied, twisted, earth-bound misfit. -- Pink Floyd</cite>
| [reply] |
A better solution might be to use a DBM, which is basically
a hash that resides (persists) on disk instead of in memory.
This is very useful for simple databases. For more complex
data structures you can add MLDBM.
Unfortunately the Little Black Book does not have a lot of
discussion about this. I highly recommend the Perl Cookbook
for 'How do I...' solutions.
Maybe someone here can add some pointers to online resources
about getting started with DBMs?
YuckFoo | [reply] |
As a matter of fact, I did consider going with the DBM solution. However, from what I have read in the Black Book, it did not seem to support an array of hashes. I will research the MLDBM, though. Thanks for the suggestion and for the book recommendation.
What I am going for is a performance boost. What do you think would process faster - the Storable routines, or the database routines? I am beginning to think that it is all a wash since I have so many records.
Thanks again.
| [reply] |
I think MLDBM uses the Storable routines. You might be able
to squeeze some performance by using Storable directly?
I think it will depend most on how you are using the data. If you
are looking at every record in the database each time, I'm
not sure any of these solutions will be faster than reading
the text file like you are now.
If you need access to a limited number of records at a time,
DBM performance should eventually be better, given enough
records.
DBM is easy to try and good to know. Performance is hard
(for me) to guess. So give it a shot, let me know how it
goes!
Regarding your list of hashs, provide a key and it
becomes a hash of hashes.
You access $pics{'MeAndDog'}->{date}.
Now it's DBM-able. Use MLDBM if you have complex data to
store, but keep in mind MLDBM and Storable are stringifying
and unstringifying the data, not sure of the performance
hit.
If each picture simply has a list of attributes, you can
combine the key and the attribute to make a new hash
key and use a simple DBM. So you access $dbm{'MeAndDog.date'},
$dbm{'MeAndDog.size'}, $dbm{'MeAndDog.text'}, etc.
HTH helps, had to rush the reply cause I'm outta here!
YuckFoo, happy to have had the opportunity to use 'unstringifying'.
| [reply] |