On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 18:02, Dave Mitchell wrote: > Pointless benchmark follows :-) Is there any other sort? :o) > on my work desktop system (sparc/solaris), > using a hash took 6 secs and a 7.2M process size; > using a function took 34 secs and a 5M process. Hmm. Mine uses a bit more memory than yours, and I would argue on two points your benchmark isn't fair: 1. your function is slower than it could be (you could compile the regex for example, although how much difference that would make depends very much on the regex in question I guess), 2. words tend to be shorter than filenames, and hashes get big very quickly with 'large' data (even something like a fully qualified file path, I would have thought - given they can get quite long). But, yeah, it is slower... Cheers, Alex.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part