Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I saw an article on perl script performance.
One of the things they mentioned is using hash references instead of accessing the hash directly each and everytime.
What benefit to do I gain from referring to the hash instead of a direct access?
My script reads from a list of server names that in theory could be as much as 100 machines if someone needed that many. So any boost I can give to my script would be great.
I don’t think there’s much of an advantage of
$hashref->{"foo"}over$hash{"foo"}. There’s probably a small advantage in passing hash refs instead of full hashes to subroutines, but that’s about all I can think of. I agree with the comment by Rafe that a hash of 100 items isn’t likely to give you performance problems either way. Unless you know you have a performance problem related to hash table access, don’t bother with this.“It’s easier to optimize a debugged program than to debug an optimized program.”