Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:14060 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71598 invoked by uid 1010); 13 Dec 2004 14:16:42 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59791 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2004 14:14:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.184.192) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2004 14:14:28 -0000 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 36so438335wri for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:14:27 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=AgkFWdetAUphEz3zGn1Xnj9yrvNiipVEQ1/TVV6375jMyubdjOdNqpXXGjLJ/GUYt9ucEoUKZZPUXGDqzrx3ZQBzwWAezMMJsUtjlDYrx2LN0iF2Sm3ZxdQo7IgKg6ZOL9F8X74Y/nx/ciPHG+YdjeVyX9ti8jt3DfPhxViHSbk= Received: by 10.54.17.76 with SMTP id 76mr160526wrq; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.59.23 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:14:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4e89b42604121306146f4ff8aa@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:14:26 -0500 Reply-To: Wez Furlong To: Matt W Cc: Derick Rethans , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <00c501c4dea7$b66ae520$0100a8c0@pc1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <002e01c4dde1$b69fe9d0$0100a8c0@pc1> <00c501c4dea7$b66ae520$0100a8c0@pc1> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Memory needed for arrays? And major performance problems filling an array From: kingwez@gmail.com (Wez Furlong) Sidestepping your original question, it sounds to me like you might benefit from using sqlite here, either direct to disk or using an in-memory sqlite database. --Wez. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:02:16 -0600, Matt W wrote: > I need arrays this large because it's building a search index, which could > have 100s of millions of entries; and I want to buffer many entries in > arrays before doing writes... So even these "large" arrays are just working > on a small chunk at a time. :-)