Re: odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

Scott R. Godin wrote: > Wiggins d'Anconia wrote: > >> Your benchmark isn't controlled. In the first instance you are doing a >> ++ on what amounts to a scalar getting autovivified, in the second >> instance you are assigning a pair of values to a list then autovivifying >> it. It isn't necessarily

Re: odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

Wiggins d'Anconia wrote: Your benchmark isn't controlled. In the first instance you are doing a ++ on what amounts to a scalar getting autovivified, in the second instance you are assigning a pair of values to a list then autovivifying it. It isn't necessarily the map vs. foreach that is causing

Re: odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

John W. Krahn wrote: Scott R. Godin wrote: Interesting .. I would have thought that map would be faster, but it appears that foreach is, in this instance. curious.. :) [snip] To be equivalent the foreach sub should use assignment instead of postincrement (which is also faster.) Interest

Re: odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

Scott R. Godin wrote: > Interesting .. I would have thought that map would be faster, but it > appears that foreach is, in this instance. curious.. :) > > > 4:52pm {193} localhost:/home/webadmin/>$ perl bench.pl > Benchmark: running Foreach, Map for at least 5 CPU seconds... >Foreach: 9 wall

Re: odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

And don't run the two test too soon after eachother, your operating system will cache some data. Also run all the tests multiple times. Wijnand -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

Scott R. Godin wrote: > Interesting .. I would have thought that map would be faster, but it > appears that foreach is, in this instance. curious.. :) > > > 4:52pm {193} localhost:/home/webadmin/>$ perl bench.pl > Benchmark: running Foreach, Map for at least 5 CPU seconds... >Foreach: 9 wall