[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I ran some more tests, some of which might be more significant: > > time(sec) db size (kB) peak RAM (MB) > no coverage 15 --- ~ 10 > Data::Dumper+eval 246 245 ~ 23.4 > Storable 190 60 ~ 19.7 > no storage 184 --- ~ 18 > > The 'no coverage' run is to provide a baseline. > > For the 'no storage' test, I ran using Devel::Cover, but modified the > read() and write() methods to be essentially no-ops. I did this to > isolate the time overhead of coverage itself, as opposed to the time > spent reading and writing the db.
Thanks. This is interesting. Was this using all the coverage criteria? I suspect so. At some point I need to do some tests to determine the average overhead of different criteria but in general running subroutine and statement coverage will give the lowest overhead, adding branch coverage will bump up the overhead significantly, and putting condition coverage on top will get you to the 12x seen above. All dependent on the actual code being covered, of course. There is an overhead in the time needed to collect coverage, the memory required whilst it is being collected, the disk space required to store it, and the size of the (html) report files. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
