> Yes. You probably do need to convert the files. Your originalat > coding likely is not [easily] compatible with binary I/O.
that's what i did. so new performance data. this is with bytes instead of strings for data on the hard drive but bignums in the hash still. as a single large file and a hash with 2000003 buckets for 26.6 million records the data rate is 98408/sec. when i split and go with 11 smaller files and hash with 500009 buckets the data rate is 106281/sec. clearly it is quicker to read/write twice than to read/write once. but of course my laptop is pretty sad and my hash may end up being sad as well. with these revised and quicker rates, i'm ready to migrate the hash to bytes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
