Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Why Thrash Memory?

by Kozz (Friar)
on Apr 01, 2000 at 00:41 UTC ( #6613=perlquestion: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??
Kozz has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

As I was writing up some subroutines in some scripts I was doing, I got to remembering reading someone's comments, "why thrash memory?". And indeed, we can all agree that if you can lessen the total memory used by your script that it's a good thing, no? So here's my question: When is it important to undef($variable) simply for the sake of being "nice" to memory? If the variable is going out of scope in another 0.25 seconds, should I forget about undefining that value? Or more importantly, when is it imperative that you undefine something?

Comment on Why Thrash Memory?
Re: Why Thrash Memory?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 01, 2000 at 01:03 UTC
    For the most part, Perl's garbage collection will handle discarding variables and cleaning up for you automatically. As you suggest, if you're mindful of the imminenet death of a variable scope, don't worry about calling undef.

    With that in mind, there are a couple of places where you might want to massage things by hand.

    • When you have a circular data structure, like a doubly linked list or some other monstrosity. As the gc works by reference counting, if you have two objects that only point to each other, they'll still stick around. Break the links or undefine one or both objects.
    • When you won't be leaving the scope for a while, but you have an item using lots of memory. One example would be performing some sort of transformation on a large data file. If you must do it all in memory (for speed reasons) but you copy it from one scalar to another, undef the first scalar as soon as possible.
    The first is the only one I'd really worry about -- with some thoughtful programming, the second may never come up. I really don't worry about it much, as wise coding tends to minimize memory usage anyway.
      Re: #1--if you're interested, Perl 5.6 has (experimental) support for weak references, meaning that you can use circular references (as one example) and have the standard garbage collection work for you. A weak reference doesn't increment the reference count of the thing to which it refers.

      You'll need the WeakRef module.

Re: Why Thrash Memory?
by stephen (Priest) on Apr 01, 2000 at 04:01 UTC
    Generally, I think that it's better to let garbage collection handle it, since undef()s clutter the code. That being said, it might be worth it if the variable is something simply huge... in which case it might be worth it to deal with the data in smaller chunks.

    I think I've just succeeded in echoing chromatic again.

    stephen

Re: Why Thrash Memory?
by Alex the Serb (Monk) on Dec 24, 2001 at 14:46 UTC
    well, after reading how internaly Perl solves memory management problems I realised that its extremely fast and there is no need to do anything unless you have to. Perl interpreter have some extremly smart algorithms. For example, Perl does not imediately deletes some data in memory, what it does is marking the memory and variables which will not be used anymore. All variables are linked like in linked lists or trees and when some variable is no longer needed the pointer of previous one points to the variable after the one that is no longer needed. Like that, there is no time consumpion and the process which really deletes those un-needed variable will see that the variable is marked and will alter the pointers.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlquestion [id://6613]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-12-21 04:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (102 votes), past polls