Re: Re: (nrd) DB_File vs flat file in terms of speed

Thanks, John! The increase in file size (from 2 to 40 KB) is atrocious :) So assuming server space is premium, one will have to weigh the speed and efficiency gained against the increase in file file...?

Comment on Re: Re: (nrd) DB_File vs flat file in terms of speed

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: (nrd) DB_File vs flat file in terms of speed by newrisedesigns (Curate) on Oct 25, 2002 at 16:13 UTC
I don't believe the database size is directly related to the flat file size. If you tie a %hash, put nothing in it, then untie, the db file will be around 32KB (at least for me: Win2K/ASPerl). I assume this 32KB is the data structure with no data. It grows slowly (not exponentially, thank God) as you put more data into the tied hash. Size isn't a pressing issue, just a thought. I have 125MB of data on my webserver, but have only used about 10 for the past year. Next on your plate should be learning SQL and the DBI module, so you can interface with mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, and Access. Dominus has a good article on SQL and DBI here Glad to be of service, John J Reiser newrisedesigns.com	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: (nrd) DB_File vs flat file in terms of speed
by newrisedesigns (Curate) on Oct 25, 2002 at 16:13 UTC

I don't believe the database size is directly related to the flat file size. If you tie a %hash, put nothing in it, then untie, the db file will be around 32KB (at least for me: Win2K/ASPerl). I assume this 32KB is the data structure with no data. It grows slowly (not exponentially, thank God) as you put more data into the tied hash.

Size isn't a pressing issue, just a thought. I have 125MB of data on my webserver, but have only used about 10 for the past year.

Next on your plate should be learning SQL and the DBI module, so you can interface with mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, and Access. Dominus has a good article on SQL and DBI here

Glad to be of service,

John J Reiser
newrisedesigns.com

[reply]