If performance is an issue, you might consider eliminating the lookup function call overhead (and the arguments about whether your module should use state or our or lexically scoped my ;-) simply by not writing a function at all! Instead performing your hash lookups directly.

To test this idea, I wrote the following little benchmark: 

use strict;
use warnings;
use Benchmark qw(timethese);

# Test hash
my %junksites = (
   'bollyinside.com' => 1,
   'www.bollyinside.com' => 1,
   'worldtrademarkreview.com' => 1,
   'www.worldtrademarkreview.com' => 1,
);

sub KnownJunkSite {
   my $val = shift;
   return $junksites{$val};
}

my @testlist = ( 'bollyinside.com', 'www.bollyinside.com', 'fred', 'ww
+w.worldtrademarkreview.com' ) x 1000;

sub fn_lookup {
   for my $v (@testlist) {
      my $t = KnownJunkSite($v);
   }
}

sub hash_lookup {
   for my $v (@testlist) {
      my $t = $junksites{$v};
   }
}

my $href = \%junksites;

sub hashref_lookup {
   for my $v (@testlist) {
      my $t = $href->{$v};
   }
}

timethese 50_000, {
   Fn      => sub { fn_lookup()      },
   Hash    => sub { hash_lookup()    },
   HashRef => sub { hashref_lookup() },
};

[download]

Running the little benchmark program above on my laptop displayed: 

Benchmark: timing 50000 iterations of Fn, Hash, HashRef...
       Fn: 28 wallclock secs (27.56 usr +  0.00 sys = 27.56 CPU) @ 181
+4.03/s
     Hash: 11 wallclock secs (11.62 usr +  0.00 sys = 11.62 CPU) @ 430
+1.08/s
  HashRef: 12 wallclock secs (12.02 usr +  0.00 sys = 12.02 CPU) @ 416
+1.12/s

[download]

Note that in the sample code above, to make a direct hash lookup more pleasing to the eye, I eliminated the call to exists simply by ensuring all keys have the true value 1.

No surprise that using the hash directly is a lot faster than calling a function every time you do a lookup. Also of interest is that a hash lookup is only marginally faster than a hash_ref lookup.

Based on this benchmark, rather than agonizing over whether your function should use block lexical scope or the Perl 5.10 state feature or an our variable, you might instead choose not to use a function at all! That is, perform the lookup directly via a hash, rather than a function call. Note that using a hashref, rather than a hash, gives you the flexibility to call your code with many different hashes, at a miniscule performance cost.

In reply to Re^6: Hash versus chain of elsifs by eyepopslikeamosquito
in thread Hash versus chain of elsifs by mldvx4

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.