Re^4: Effeciency of key-only hash


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks

Re^4: Effeciency of key-only hash

by kyle (Abbot)

on Aug 24, 2008 at 13:05 UTC ( [id://706558]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Re^3: Effeciency of key-only hash
in thread Effecicncy of key-only hash

Any of those executes at well over 300000 per second. How many seconds do you think you'll spend debugging a "failure to use exists"? Is the performance gain worth that? How many times would you have to run this program before the execution time gained exceeds the debugging time lost? How do you value your time versus execution time (note that you're coding in Perl, not C)?

Comment on Re^4: Effeciency of key-only hash

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Effeciency of key-only hash by massa (Hermit) on Aug 24, 2008 at 19:34 UTC
++ You have a wonderful point there. In my mind, personally, I associate sets with hashes of undef, so I get to see easily if an `exists` is missing, but I can see others letting it go. []s, HTH, Massa (κς,πμ,πλ)	[reply] [d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom

Domain Nodelet^?

www.com | www.net | www.org

Node Status^?

node history
Node Type: note [id://706558]
help

Chatterbox^?

How do I use this? • Last hour • Other CB clients

Other Users^?

Others sharing their wisdom with the Monastery: (5)

As of 2024-04-24 22:36 GMT

Sections^?

Information^?

Find Nodes^?

Leftovers^?

Today I Learned

Voting Booth^?

No recent polls found