On 7/22/05, Tony Bowden <tony-LhsUWLkCAQ8AvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rough benchmarking seems to show that the "*" template is slightly faster
> than the "x" template, but how much faster seems to depend on the length
> of the data being packed. As the data length increases the difference
> gets smaller. Even for very big strings, though, it doesn't seem to
> get slower with my test data, so I guess we'll go for that.
Cool. Not too fussed either way, but * it is :)
I'm looking at FieldsReader / Writer (now with a hangover ;) and I'm
not convinced we couldn't still use the slurp+pack in a one-shot
approach.
Thoughts, or am I missing something?
|
