Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer |
|
PerlMonks |
Re^4: Threads and fork and CLONE, oh my!by jdhedden (Deacon) |
on Sep 16, 2005 at 17:57 UTC ( [id://492699]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
The performance of the blessed hash case is dependent on the length of the keys used in the hash: The longer the key, the more time it takes!
For one-character keys, blessed hashes are slightly faster than the cached refaddr case. (I got 2% when I did the timings.) However, one-character keys are rather unrealistic, and definitely not good programming practice. For two-character keys, the performance is the same. For three or more characters, cached refaddr is faster! I think five characters is realistic, and their performance is 2% slower. For ten characters, 7% slower! So if I were to call a winner, cached refaddr would be it. On another minor note, 0+$self yields the same result as the refaddr function. So you can eliminate 'use Scalar::Util', and just cache 0+$self. Remember: There's always one more bug.
In Section
Meditations
|
|