Re: [RDBO] fetch*_arrayref vs. fetch*_hashref

2005-12-20 Thread John Siracusa
On 12/20/05 1:10 AM, Mark D. Anderson wrote: > in my experience, basically any alternative to fetch*_hashref is noticeably > faster, and among those alternatives, they are all pretty similar. not too > surprisingly, if you fill a reusable $row hash using bind_columns and then > fetch, it ends up no

Re: [RDBO] fetch*_arrayref vs. fetch*_hashref

2005-12-19 Thread Mark D. Anderson
i'll be the first to admin that i'm just spouting off here a perl profiler would quickly reveal where the time is really being spent. > > I don't know if things have improved in the past few years, but about three > > years ago I had to tune some bulk loading of a perl object cache from an > >

Re: [RDBO] fetch*_arrayref vs. fetch*_hashref

2005-12-19 Thread John Siracusa
On 12/19/05 10:49 PM, Mark D. Anderson wrote: > I think many of use realize what a pig dog fetch*_hashref is relative to > fetch*_arrayref. > > I don't know if things have improved in the past few years, but about three > years ago I had to tune some bulk loading of a perl object cache from an > R

[RDBO] fetch*_arrayref vs. fetch*_hashref

2005-12-19 Thread Mark D. Anderson
I think many of use realize what a pig dog fetch*_hashref is relative to fetch*_arrayref. I don't know if things have improved in the past few years, but about three years ago I had to tune some bulk loading of a perl object cache from an RDBMS, and found that fetchrow_arrayref was about 5 times f