G'day cavac,
"Your solution is probably a lot faster, ..."
I've always found for to be faster than map so I benchmarked.
I ran the following with: 0 .. 5 (from the two nodes on which you commented);
0 .. 40 (the OP's original range); and,
0 .. 5000 (just to see if a large range made any significant different).
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Benchmark 'cmpthese';
cmpthese 0 => {
with_for => \&with_for,
with_map => \&with_map,
};
sub with_for {
my @f;
push @f, [$_+2, $_+1] for 0 .. 5;
}
sub with_map {
my @f = map [$_+2, $_+1], 0 .. 5;
}
I ran each three times; there was little difference in the results; I've just posted the middle results below.
# 0 .. 5
Rate with_map with_for
with_map 602818/s -- -23%
with_for 780657/s 30% --
# 0 .. 40
Rate with_map with_for
with_map 92655/s -- -23%
with_for 120756/s 30% --
# 0 .. 5000
Rate with_map with_for
with_map 745/s -- -23%
with_for 968/s 30% --
The smallest difference was -21% vs. 27%; the largest was -25% vs. 33%.
As the range was increased, all values tended towards -23% vs. 30% (the middle values for all runs).
In this instance, for is faster than map (i.e. what I've always found in the past).
|