> > 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?
>
more like the first:
my $max = (sort { $b <=> $a } @input)[0];
changing it to the more efficient version yields these results:
sort 10_000 elems: 4 wallclock secs ( 2.94 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.94 CPU) @
340136.05/s (n=1000000)
sort 20 elems: 4 wallclock secs ( 3.15 usr + 0.00 sys = 3.15 CPU) @
317460.32/s (n=1000000)
no difference really.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
