Felix Geerinckx wrote:
>
> Now you're talking.
> But just for the fun of it, run the benchmark again with the OP's original
> (much longer) string ... ;-)
>
testing result for a longer string(i use the one from the OP).i add a few
new lines to make it more readable:
Benchmark: timing 999999 iterations of search_assign, search_replace,
substr...
search_assign: 51 wallclock secs (22.73 usr + 0.02 sys = 22.75 CPU) @
43956.00/s (n=999999)
search_replace: 37 wallclock secs (17.29 usr + 0.01 sys = 17.30 CPU) @
57803.41/s (n=999999)
substr: 10 wallclock secs ( 4.40 usr + 0.00 sys = 4.40 CPU) @
227272.50/s (n=999999)
essentially:
search_assign is: ($_) = /(\S+).$/;
search_replace: is: s/.*\[uuid (.*)\]/$1/;
substr is: ($_ = substr($_,rindex($_,' ')+1)) =~ s/.$//;
so for a shorter string, the search_assign thingy is faster. for a longer
string the search_replace appoach is faster.
but in all cases, the substr appoach is faster(sometimes much faster) than
the other appocach... nice to know.
david
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
