On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 13:50, Jeremy Vinding wrote:
> > >there must be a flaw in my test here:
> > >
> > >my @bob = rand for (1..20);
> > >my @joe = rand for (1..10_000);
> >
> > Those.
> >
> > my @bob = map rand, 1 .. 20;
> > my @joe = map rand, 1 .. 10_000;
> >
>
> duh... thx
> of course, the results still favor sort:
>
> Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of for 10_000 elems, for 20 elems, sort
> 10_000 elems, sort 20 elems...
> for 10_000 elems: 7 wallclock secs ( 5.11 usr + 0.02 sys = 5.13 CPU) @
> 194931.77/s (n=1000000)
> for 20 elems: 8 wallclock secs ( 5.44 usr + 0.01 sys = 5.45 CPU) @
> 183486.24/s (n=1000000)
> sort 10_000 elems: 4 wallclock secs ( 2.99 usr + -0.02 sys = 2.97 CPU) @
> 336700.34/s (n=1000000)
> sort 20 elems: 3 wallclock secs ( 3.22 usr + -0.04 sys = 3.18 CPU) @
> 314465.41/s (n=1000000)
>
Was this using the original
#sort ascending and get the last element
$max = (sort { $a <=> $b } @input)[-1];
method or Schwartz's more efficient
#sort descending and assign to a list of one variable
($max) = sort { $b <=> $a } @input;
method?
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle the 44th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3168
Wibble.
Missle Address: 33:48:3.521N 84:23:34.786W
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
