in reply to Re: Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code
in thread Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code
Thank you for your quick reply and pointing me in the direction of Benchmark. Observant me didn't even think of time passed since the statement was made, but I figured since I asked the question I may as well go ahead and learn how to use Benchmark and get the answer. For anybody interested in the results:
For the sake of simplicity I used the code from the passage broken into subroutines to be called by Benchmark:
RESULTS:
Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of Idiom, Verbose...
Idiom: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.08 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.08 CPU) @ 1250000.00/s (n=100000)
(warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
Verbose: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.12 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.12 CPU) @ 833333.33/s (n=100000)
(warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of Idiom, Verbose...
Idiom: 1 wallclock secs ( 0.76 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.76 CPU) @ 1315789.47/s (n=1000000)
Verbose: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.12 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.12 CPU) @ 892857.14/s (n=1000000)
Benchmark: timing 10000000 iterations of Idiom, Verbose...
Idiom: 8 wallclock secs ( 7.52 usr + 0.00 sys = 7.52 CPU) @ 1329787.23/s (n=10000000)
Verbose: 12 wallclock secs (11.76 usr + 0.00 sys = 11.76 CPU) @ 850340.14/s (n=10000000)
So at least for this particular piece of code map proves to be faster. Thanks again for helping me answer my own question. As always, I'm still a beginner so if this is misguided/messy code or i tested this wrong please let me know.
For the sake of simplicity I used the code from the passage broken into subroutines to be called by Benchmark:
#!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use Benchmark qw(:all); my %h; @h{'A'..'Z','a'..'z'} = 1..52; sub verbose { my $hash = shift; foreach my $key (sort keys %$hash) { print "$key: $hash->{$key}\n"; } } sub idiom { my $hash = shift; print map "$_: $hash->{$_}\n", sort keys %$hash; } timethese(100000, { 'Verbose' => 'verbose(\%h)', 'Idiom' => 'idiom(\%h)', }); timethese(1000000, { 'Verbose' => 'verbose(\%h)', 'Idiom' => 'idiom(\%h)', }); timethese(10000000, { 'Verbose' => 'verbose(\%h)', 'Idiom' => 'idiom(\%h)', });
RESULTS:
Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of Idiom, Verbose...
Idiom: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.08 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.08 CPU) @ 1250000.00/s (n=100000)
(warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
Verbose: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.12 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.12 CPU) @ 833333.33/s (n=100000)
(warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of Idiom, Verbose...
Idiom: 1 wallclock secs ( 0.76 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.76 CPU) @ 1315789.47/s (n=1000000)
Verbose: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.12 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.12 CPU) @ 892857.14/s (n=1000000)
Benchmark: timing 10000000 iterations of Idiom, Verbose...
Idiom: 8 wallclock secs ( 7.52 usr + 0.00 sys = 7.52 CPU) @ 1329787.23/s (n=10000000)
Verbose: 12 wallclock secs (11.76 usr + 0.00 sys = 11.76 CPU) @ 850340.14/s (n=10000000)
So at least for this particular piece of code map proves to be faster. Thanks again for helping me answer my own question. As always, I'm still a beginner so if this is misguided/messy code or i tested this wrong please let me know.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^3: Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code
by ruzam (Curate) on Oct 04, 2012 at 22:57 UTC | |
Re^3: Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code
by remiah (Hermit) on Oct 04, 2012 at 22:52 UTC | |
Re^3: Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code
by remiah (Hermit) on Oct 04, 2012 at 23:18 UTC | |
by ruzam (Curate) on Oct 04, 2012 at 23:45 UTC | |
by remiah (Hermit) on Oct 05, 2012 at 01:38 UTC | |
by ruzam (Curate) on Oct 05, 2012 at 14:28 UTC |
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom