use Benchmark;


##</code><code>##

$x = timeit($count, 'CODE');
## CODE is run $count times
## $x becomes a Benchmark object which contains the result
print "Result from $count loops: ";
print timestr($x), "\n";


##</code><code>##

$x = timethis($count, 'CODE');

## or even just:

timethis($count, 'CODE');


##</code><code>##

@x = timethese($count, { 'one','CODE1', 'two','CODE2' });


##</code><code>##

timethese($count, {
  'one'   => 'CODE1',
  'two'   => 'CODE2',
  'pizza' => 'CODE_X', ## etc....
});


##</code><code>##

$x = timeit($count, 'CODE1');
$y = timeit($count, 'CODE2');
$mydiff = timediff($x, $y);


##</code><code>##

#!/usr/bin/perl
use Benchmark;

$count = shift || die "Need a count!\n";

## Create a dummy list of 1000 random 6 letter words
srand();
for (1..1000) {
  push(@words,
    chr(rand(26)+65) . chr(rand(26)+65) . chr(rand(26)+65) .
    chr(rand(26)+65) . chr(rand(26)+65) . chr(rand(26)+65));
}

## Method number one - a numeric sort
sub One {
  @temp = sort {$a <=> $b} @words;
}

## Method number two - an alphabetic sort
sub Two {
  @temp = sort {$a cmp $b} @words;
}

## We'll test each one, with simple labels
timethese (
  $count,
  {'Method One' => '&One',
   'Method Two' => '&Two'}
);

exit;



##</code><code>##

Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of Sort One, Sort Two...
  Sort One:  0 secs ( 0.33 usr  0.00 sys =  0.33 cpu)
            (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
  Sort Two:  1 secs ( 0.48 usr  0.01 sys =  0.49 cpu)


##</code><code>##

Benchmark: timing 150 iterations of Sort One, Sort Two...
  Sort One:  5 secs ( 4.89 usr  0.01 sys =  4.90 cpu)
  Sort Two:  8 secs ( 7.12 usr  0.01 sys =  7.13 cpu)


##</code><code>##

$count = shift || die "Need a count!\n";