New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Perl 5.10 Storable extremely slow for large trees of data #9212
Comments
From clintp@gmail.comCreated by clintp@gmail.comTo duplicate a large expat-parsed XML structure (with refs of refs of refs), I'm doing the following: my $temp = Storable::freeze $originalXml; And by "large" I mean about 8MB when dumped with Data::Dumper. Under Perl Perl Info
|
From clintp@gmail.comA copy of a sample Data-Dumped file is attached. The sample program I'm #!/usr/bin/perl use Storable; { $|=1; # Takes almost immeasurable amount of time in 5.6 # Fast again. close(XML); |
clintp@gmail.com - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @nwc10On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:26:34AM -0800, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
Do you have a sample data structure you can attach? 5.10 comes with Storable 2.18. If you download this from CPAN and build it Nicholas Clark |
From clintp@gmail.comI commented to my own bug report, and a sample structure is attached. Building Storable 2.18 for 5.6 is going to be really, really tough these On Jan 29, 2008 4:53 AM, Nicholas Clark via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org>
|
From @steve-m-hayClinton Pierce wrote:
I gave this a quick whirl while waiting for something to compile && Using the xml attached in the bug report, my 5.10.0 build takes about I also tried a 5.8.8 building Storable 2.16: it takes 2.7 secs again. (I'm using VC++ 6.0 on Win XP.) |
From @steve-m-haySteve Hay wrote:
More detail: There is definitely a difference between 5.6.2 and 5.10.0, but a far With 5.10.0 the freeze takes about 2.7 secs with the system malloc and Not sure why the system malloc figure is slower with 5.10.0, but if the |
From @steve-m-hayYes, the usemymalloc=n means your 5.6 was using the system malloc I noticed that you were using 5.6.0 rather than the 5.6.2 that I tried, The part of 2.13 onwards that doesn't build with 5.6.0 is UTF8 stuff ________________________________ From: Clinton Pierce [mailto:clintp@gmail.com] As a followup to myself, I ran perl -V on the 5.6 build that's nice and Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 6 subversion 0) configuration: On Jan 29, 2008 11:19 AM, Clinton Pierce <clintp@gmail.com> wrote: More detail: |
From clintp@gmail.comAs a followup to myself, I ran perl -V on the 5.6 build that's nice and Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 6 subversion 0) configuration: Characteristics of this binary (from libperl): On Jan 29, 2008 11:19 AM, Clinton Pierce <clintp@gmail.com> wrote:
|
From clintp@gmail.com
Good find. And that pretty much leaves me up a creek. I can't really use a self-built |
From clintp@gmail.comOn Jan 29, 2008 1:07 PM, Steve Hay <SteveHay@planit.com> wrote:
That is a possibility. We're not using any UTF8 stuff here at all -- it's I checked the Storable in the 5.6 distribution we're using here -- Version |
From @steve-m-hayClinton Pierce wrote:
Not straight out-of-the-box. I tried with 1.0.14 and then again with |
From @nwc10On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:43:22AM -0000, Steve Hay wrote:
I think like this: #if PERL_VERSION < 9 It's what the current Storable has, and I'd be surprised if anyone ever Nicholas Clark |
From @steve-m-hayNicholas Clark wrote:
OK, that gets it building and it passed all tests still. Unfortunately, it's no quicker than 2.18 was with my 5.10/system-malloc |
From @nwc10On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:59:05AM -0000, Steve Hay wrote:
So is this Storable speed difference solely the difference between system Nicholas Clark |
From @steve-m-hayNicholas Clark wrote:
It's the only significant difference that I've found. To summarize: The only real big difference that I've seen is switching to perl's Clinton, what times do you actually get from your 5.6.0 vs 5.10.0 |
From @steve-m-hayOK, your 3.23s compares with my 2.7s for 5.10.0+2.18, and I get 0.7s for So your 5.6.0 set-up never gave you times like those I've seen with ________________________________ From: Clinton Pierce [mailto:clintp@gmail.com] Using the supplied data file: C:\temp>\perl\bin\perl.exe xmledit.pl C:\temp>\perl_560\bin\perl.exe xmledit.pl Both Perls were from ActiveState. 5.6 Build 623's Storable had to have come from PPM -- we wouldn't have |
From clintp@gmail.comUsing the supplied data file: C:\temp>\perl\bin\perl.exe xmledit.pl C:\temp>\perl_560\bin\perl.exe xmledit.pl Both Perls were from ActiveState. 5.6 Build 623's Storable had to have come from PPM -- we wouldn't have |
From @jkeenanOn Mon Jan 28 11:26:33 2008, clint wrote:
There has been no correspondence in this RT for over five years. If someone feels we still have this problem with Storable, could s/he Thank you very much. |
From clintp@gmail.com... and the project was just converted over to a C# .Net version, as we're Alas. On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:30 PM, James E Keenan via RT <
|
From @demerphqOn 10 August 2013 03:43, Clinton Pierce <clintp@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, pity, I was going to ask if using Sereal was an option. It is cheers, |
From @dcollinsnOn Fri Aug 09 17:30:15 2013, jkeenan wrote:
Great. Evidence in this thread is that Storable performance has improved since is report, and there are no reports of slower than expected operations on a currently supported Perl. Marking resolved. -- |
@dcollinsn - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#50352 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT50352$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: