True, but the target strings shown are pretty small. I'd benchmark this one before making assumptions about where the cutoverpoint between using a regex and using a hash is. I suspect that for a small number of keys, the regex wins.
Hm... the original post doesn't give us much guidance about the cardinality of the key file. Given that, I'd probably go with a hash after all.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: need more efficient way to write this query script
by dws
in thread need more efficient way to write this query script
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |