performance question

[mharris at lclark.edu]

I would think if you're dealing with roughly 217kb of data, the 
performance gain of one sort method over the other should be 
negligible.

--On Friday, February 15, 2002 10:35 AM -0800 Joshua Keroes 
<jkeroes at eli.net> wrote:

>
> Why not store them in memory, and instead of calling another program,
> call another subroutine? This would save a number of file opens and
> some forking. Regardless, since it's only 200 files and calls to
> launch the other program, that probably won't amount to more than a
> few seconds or minutes at the most.
>
> Your call.
> Joshua
>
> PS When in doubt, benchmark.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Keller <kellert at ohsu.edu>
> To: PDX Perl List <pdx-pm-list at pm.org>
> Date: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:12 AM
> Subject: performance question
>
>
>> I hope this isn't off topic. I'm using perl for the following:
>> Parse a list of start and stop positions for a fairly large (217061
>> chars) file of DNA sequence data (m/[acgt]+/i - hopefully Not
>> alphabetized!). I have about 200 putative genes demarcated with these
>> start and stop positions within that sequence that I wish to further
>> analyze. From a performance pov, am I better off reading the same
>> larger file 200 times or should I read the large file into memory,
>> create 200 smaller files, then pass each of these to my next program?
>
> TIMTOWTDI




TIMTOWTDI