in reply to Re^3: string to more compact format
in thread string to more compact format

Hmm strange that storing a 50 byte key hash is just a fraction larger than a 12-byte key hash. Why is that? I can't store my strings into an array. Since sometimes strings occur more than once and i should keep track of that.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: string to more compact format
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 17, 2010 at 14:59 UTC
    Hmm strange that storing a 50 byte key hash is just a fraction larger than a 12-byte key hash. Why is that?

    Because for each key/value pair, there are 40 bytes (32-bit, more on 64-bit) of overhead in addition to the key and value data. See Hash structure illustration. So for short keys, most of the space used by a hash is in the internal construction, not the keys & values themselves.

    I can't store my strings into an array. Since sometimes strings occur more than once and i should keep track of that.

    Then use the hash, but don't bother with the compression because you won't gain anything from it. 70MB isn't such a lot these days.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
Re^5: string to more compact format
by ack (Deacon) on May 18, 2010 at 16:31 UTC

    I can't store my strings into an array. Since sometimes strings occur more than once...

    I'm curious, if the strings can occur "more than once" then how do you use the hash? Would you keep track of the number of occurences in the value of the hash?

    ack Albuquerque, NM
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom