On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> A lot - I'd guess just under a million.
At that volume thinking about this kind of optimisation might be
worthwhile. If the file is less than 4K then optimising the format is
probably a waste of time. DBM files probably have a higher cutover point
than CDB files. I assume you've already implemented basic disk
optimisations like no_message_logs and no_write_rejectlog.
> But - the question is also - I have some text lists with 4 entries so I assume
> that 4 is quicker with just a text search. I assume probably 100 is faster in
> a DB search. Where is the breaking point? 25 - 50?
If you really care, benchmark it.
Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}
