tie()'d objects have overhead
True, but the OP said that performance was not a concern.
... 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 ...
My thought was to replace the 120_000 element hash with a Tie::SubstrHash which does make a considerable saving in space. However, as you can't use a Tie::SubstrHash to store references, that throws the idea in the bin.
I have an incomplete and broken version of the standard module that attempts to work around this particular restriction, but in the absence of the abilty to build XS/Inline-C, I am unable to complete that. There's no guarentee I could bring the idea to fruition anyway.
Examine what is said, not who speaks.
The 7th Rule of perl club is -- pearl clubs are easily damaged. Use a diamond club instead.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: A memory efficient hash, trading off speed - does it already exist?
by BrowserUk
in thread A memory efficient hash, trading off speed - does it already exist?
by JPaul
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |