go ahead... be a heretic | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
+ + aaron_baugher; I didn't even notice the similarity ...and shame on me for that, as it means it's no answer to OP's original dilemma.
I was, I realize now (thanks to your watchfulness), obsessing on the multiple responses offering use of a hash as a solution. I still think those represent something close to cargo-culting a meme, (rather than actual code) -- but not an optimal solution, since, if I read the wisdom of the sages correctly (and if they're right, of course), using a hash would be at least as memory intensive and probably more so. That's also an issue with map and grep (cf Eliya's observations, above), but perhaps less so than using a hash (that's another test that I haven't undertaken, but which might lead to a publishable finding). And in the same node, Eliya makes a cogent point (echoed in slightly different context by dave_the_m's code: there are a variety of ways to attack OP's problem with reduced memory demand. Yet another might be a step-wise solution: first, separate the id portion of the first dataset to a file of it's own; then identify the ids in the second file that don't have identical (or identically normalized, if that's involved, too) values. But, again, ++ for casting a sharp eye on the prior responses. In reply to Re^5: Memory issue with large array comparison
by ww
|
|