Re: [pm-h] complex data structure help

I'm not familiar with the that log format, but taking the detabase suggestion
one step in an odd direction, DBD::CSV might be able to put a relational
database front-end on a log file.

In the past, my normal approach for this sort of thing was an array of hashes.
(One hash perl line) The array is easily sorted with usung 'sort' and can be
filtered using 'grep'.

Depending on how big the data set is and how complicated the query a database
might be a better choice.

G. Wade

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:41:39 -0600
buu@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:13:02PM -0600, Paul Archer wrote:
> > I'm writing a log analyzer (a la Webalyzer) to analyze Solaris' nfslog 
> > files. They're in the same format as wu-ftpd xferlog files. I'd use an 
> > existing solution, but I can't find anything that keeps track of reads vs 
> > writes, which is critical for us.
> > Anyway, I need to be able to sort by filesystem, client machine, user,
> > time (with a one-hour base period) read, write, or total usage.
> > Can anyone suggest a data structure (or pointers to same) that will allow
> > me to pull data out in an arbitrary fashion (ie users on X day sorted by
> > data written)?
> > Once I have the structure, I can deal with doing the reports, but I want
> > to make sure I don't shoot myself in the foot with the structure.
> > 
> > I was thinking of a hash of hashes, where the keys are filesystems
> > pointing to hashes where the keys are client machines, etc, etc. But it
> > seems that approach would be inefficent for lookups based on times or
> > users (for example).
> > 
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > Houston mailing list
> > Houston@xxxxxx
> > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
> 
> Um. Have you considered a relational database? Sounds ideal for your
> problem..
> _______________________________________________
> Houston mailing list
> Houston@xxxxxx
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston


-- 
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical.
                                                       -- Neils Bohr