Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??
I think, yes, denying the importance of using slimmer and faster variants of certain common tools/modules is not the wisest thing to do. For one, I already see quite a number of CGI scripts that which require performance boost and one way I might do it is by simply converting from 'use CGI' to 'use CGI::Simple;'. This will be especially easy to do since most of my CGI scripts don't require extended features supplied with standard CGI module.

However, as far as 'extended' features go, is it not true that CGI doesn't really load them until they are first requested inside the main code? Basically, CGI keeps this %SUBS hash which contains a whole bunch of subroutines' definitions. These are loaded only on the first time each one is requested. I feel like author(s) of the modules eagerly tried to drive this point across with this comment (ripped from CGI.pm):
###################################################################### +######### ################# THESE FUNCTIONS ARE AUTOLOADED ON DEMAND ########### +######### ###################################################################### +#########

This is followed by the infamous %SUBS hash:
%SUBS = ( 'read_from_client' => <<'END_OF_FUNC', # Read data from a file handle sub read_from_client { my($self, $fh, $buff, $len, $offset) = @_; local $^W=0; # prevent a warning return undef unless defined($fh); return read($fh, $$buff, $len, $offset); } END_OF_FUNC ### MANY OTHER EXCITING SUBS ### );
So, say, even if I went the 'use CGI;' way, the only time wasted here (provided I have no interest in making a call to the CGI::read_from_client() method) is that required for the hash to load. Perl parser wouldn't waste a nanosecond on parsing the actual sub. This is a huge time saver compared to if subs were not nicely hidden inside a hash etc. (the standard way).

I'm wondering if this would explain the fact that CGI::Simple is only 50% faster than CGI?

"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." -- Confession of Faith

In reply to Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough? by vladb
in thread CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough? by tachyon

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":



  • Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
    <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
  • Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
  • Want more info? How to link or or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.
Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (5)
As of 2021-10-27 22:21 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    My first memorable Perl project was:







    Results (94 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?