On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >http://stats.distributed.net used to use a perl script to do some
> >transformations before loading data into the database. IIRC, when we
> >switched to using C we saw 100x improvement in speed, so I suspect that
> >if you want performance perl isn't the way to go. I think you can
> >compile perl into C, so maybe that would help some.
>
> I use Perl extensively, and have never seen a performance problem. I
> suspect the perl-to-C "100x improvement" was due to some other factor, like
> a slight change in the schema, indexes, or the fundamental way the client
> (C vs Perl) handled the data during the transformation, or just plain bad
> Perl code.
>
> Modern scripting languages like Perl and Python make programmers far, far
> more productive than the bad old days of C/C++. Don't shoot yourself in
> the foot by reverting to low-level languages like C/C++ until you've
> exhausted all other possibilities. I only use C/C++ for intricate
> scientific algorithms.
>
> In many cases, Perl is *faster* than C/C++ code that I write, because I
> can't take the time (for example) to write the high-performance string
> manipulation that have been fine-tuned and extensively optimized in Perl.
Well, the code is all at
http://cvs.distributed.net/viewcvs.cgi/stats-proc/hourly/ (see logmod
directory and logmod_*.pl). There have been changes made to the C code
since we changed over, but you can find the appropriate older versions
in there. IIRC, nothing in the database changed when we went from perl
to C (it's likely that was the *only* change that happened anywhere
around that time).
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
