X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <45B7CADC.4050502@tlinx.org> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:08:44 -0800 From: Linda Walsh User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Perl inefficiency... References: <20070122181727 DOT GC27843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1552 DOT 67 DOT 40 DOT 28 DOT 188 DOT 1169493973 DOT squirrel AT 67 DOT 40 DOT 28 DOT 188> <20070122202137 DOT GC20665 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <3593 DOT 67 DOT 40 DOT 28 DOT 188 DOT 1169584799 DOT squirrel AT 67 DOT 40 DOT 28 DOT 188> <20070124100540 DOT GP27843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> In-Reply-To: <20070124100540.GP27843@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com $a="a"; (uses 2 Bytes) $a="a" * 100Meg; (uses 200MB) $b="b" * 100Meg; ... I may be reading this incorrectly, but I don't think the question is why storage for the separate strings "$a", "$b" isn't freed, but why would perl use 2 bytes/character? I thought perl used UTF-8 internally(?). Shouldn't it be using closer to 100MB to store 100-Million chars? Of course if perl had a "use-less-memory" pragma, I might even "hope" that it would store the above string as a repeat-count followed by the string...but that would be expecting a bit... I understand perl may not be as efficient in data storage as C, but seems like expanding a 100MB string to take 200MB is wasting 100MB. Is this what you were referring to, Corinna? Linda -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/