Holy cow - thanks all for the input. This is really being extraordinarily interesting.

OK, i've pretty much digested the common thread to replies - that so long as the data fits in memory, there should be no surprise that a custom coded Perl solution beats an overhead-laden rdbms soltuion. The question is a strategic one - trade flexibility, robustness and standardization for speed, or not?

demerphq's ideas appear to me to closely resemble my DB3 - splitting the data up into enough mysql tables to have every column indexed, except I went to the extreme and had one column per table. We got the result he expected - DB3 was the fastest of all mysql-based queries. The mere fact he suggested doing something like this makes me think I should keep this solution in the back of my mind - maybe sometimes odd design can justify itself.

BrowserUK - you are a coding machine! But I'm not clear on how we went from talking about 250milliseconds-per-query in paragraph 2, then 250 queries-per-millisecond in paragraph 4. I do very much like your string-row solution. Again, it's giving me ideas about reading up on piddles. Do I understand correctly that the trial times are for a single execution? If so, it looks like your strategy applied to 3,000 individual text tables is still holding the speed record. Thanks.

I think then what I have in DB4 is a baseline. This is a fast as you could possibly hope for, so shoot for the closest to to that within a mysql solution. At least we know how 'good' a solution is with a baseline for comparison. I wonder if a hand-coded Perl query system might make a good standard practice in database development when the data lends itself to that, so that developers know how fast is fast in a particular situation?

The various treatments of DB1 & 2, including dragonchild's, make me really want to see that schema approach the baseline. I think it might be the best compromise.

SO, I'm embarking on a matrix of tests on that schema. The variables are:

I count a total of 24 permutations, including ones with no KEYs. This wil take a day or two to find time - - - then I'll start a new thread.

Then we'll make a strategic choice.

Thanks all for your participation.

In reply to Re: Basic Perl trumps DBI? Or my poor DB design? by punch_card_don
in thread Basic Perl trumps DBI? Or my poor DB design? by punch_card_don

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.