I know that, but I've already explained what it's irrelevant. There's no correspondence between the parameter passed to read and the amount that needs to be read from disk, so saying that reading 8192 bytes from disk at a time is a good idea doesn't make requesting 8192 characters from read a good idea.
Take for example text consisting entirely of ASCII characters save for a one character with a 3-byte encoding. read(..., 8192) requires reading 8194 bytes from disk. So asking for 8190 characters would have been a better choice if reading 8192 bytes from disk is optimal as you claim.
The only time one might be able to claim that providing a size of 8192 to read is a good choice is when reading text using a fixed-width encoding (so not UTF-8 or UTF-16le). These days, that would mostly be binary data, but using read at all to slurp a binary file is surely slower than using sysread. So even then, read(..., 8192) would be suboptimal.
In fact, even with text files, using sysread and decoding afterwards is probably faster than using read with an encoding layer if you're interested in slurping the whole file.
Your statements about performance seem quite uninformed.
In reply to Re^10: Error binmode() on unopened filehandle
by ikegami
in thread Error binmode() on unopened filehandle
by RedJeep
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |