DNA performance question

Raphael Almeria almeria at earthlink.net
Mon Feb 18 22:15:15 CST 2002

>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
>Regardless, since it's only 200 files and calls to launch the other
>that probably won't amount to more than a few seconds or minutes at the

I agree.  Storing your sequence data in memory is faster although if your
data set is small then it probably won't matter too much if you read/write
files as opposed to having everything in memory.  If you have MBs of data
then you should definitely store it in memory and process it there.


More information about the Pdx-pm-list mailing list