Bug #4031 for Set-Scalar: Set::Scalar much slower than equivalent operations on hashes

Mon Oct 06 15:00:39 2003 metaperl [...] gmail.com - Ticket created

Subject:

Set::Scalar much slower than equivalent operations on hashes

I discussed your module in this node: http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=297012 and it turns out that it is much slower than the equivalent code using Perl hashes.

Mon Oct 06 15:33:57 2003 jhi [...] iki.fi - Correspondence added

Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:33:13 +0300
From:	Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi [...] iki.fi>
To:	via RT <bug-Set-Scalar [...] rt.cpan.org>
CC:	"AdminCc of cpan Ticket #4031": ;
Subject:	Re: [cpan #4031] Set::Scalar much slower than equivalent operations on hashes
RT-Send-Cc:

Show quoted text

> I discussed your module in this node: > > http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=297012 > > and it turns out that it is much slower than the equivalent code using Perl hashes.

Errr, yes? As commented in that thread, I can't do much about OO overhead. If what you are doing can be done using hashes, and you don't mind using hashes, use hashes. I do. -- Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@iki.fi> http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ "There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen

Mon Oct 06 16:03:37 2003 jhi [...] iki.fi - Correspondence added

Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:02:36 +0300
From:	Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi [...] iki.fi>
To:	via RT <bug-Set-Scalar [...] rt.cpan.org>
CC:	"AdminCc of cpan Ticket #4031": ;
Subject:	Re: [cpan #4031] Set::Scalar much slower than equivalent operations on hashes
RT-Send-Cc:

For the said problem I wouldn't even use sets (in Perl), either hashes or Set::Scalar objects-- I would use regular expressions. TIMTOWTDI. -- Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@iki.fi> http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ "There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen

Wed Oct 15 10:34:34 2003 JHI [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'new' to 'resolved'