BrowserUk suggests that Tie::SubstrHash be used as a potential solution...
I recommend that this solution not be considered. tie()'d objects have overhead. In the cheapest case, we would be replacing a small basic hash with less than 4 entries with a tied hash, and an attached blessed string reference. No gain would be realized, and performance would suffer.
In reply to Re: Re: A memory efficient hash, trading off speed - does it already exist?
by MarkM
in thread A memory efficient hash, trading off speed - does it already exist?
by JPaul
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |