Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

Hey John, One more follow up and then it's bedtime for me. I wanted to further this discussion just a little bit more by implementing the mmap solution that I applied to perl to ruby instead. Now all of a sudden, ruby is much much faster. My ruby source code follows: Goodnight! # ruby -W0 ./d

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

microseconds at best. I've included my version for your reference. Before closing, I happen to like micro benchmarks whether or not you think 'I know this benchmark is maybe meaningless' as your site says. If anything, it can absolutely be useful. I personally think sometimes the

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

Hey John, On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 3:04 AM Jon Smart wrote: > > Hello Paul > > Do you mean by undef $/ and with <$fh> we can read the file into memory > at one time? > In most cases the short answer is yes. I have problems with your wording however given the 'geek' that I am. 'At one time'

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

Sorry, it's 5:00am here and needless to say it's wy past my bedtime and I'm making mistakes. The comparison should have been between both ruby versions ugh. I'll let you play though. Have a great night. On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 4:57 AM Paul Procacci wrote: > Hey John, > > One more foll

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:03 AM Jon Smart wrote: > > Thanks Paul. I am surprised that mmap has that huge IO advantages > comparing to the classic way. So ruby take more benefit from this mmap > calling. Just get learned from your case. > > Regards > > It's not always beneficial. There are cases

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

On 1/15/22 06:37, Jon Smart wrote: Hello, May I show the result of my benchmark for perl5, ruby, and scala? https://blog.cloudcache.net/benchmark-for-scala-ruby-and-perl/ Welcome you to give any suggestion to me for improving this. Thanks. The data is way to small tbh, there is no

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

Thanks for the geeks on the lists who pointed out a lot of problems to me. I want to add the description why I want to make this benchmark. And I tried to use mmap() for reading file but I have got no benefits from it. https://blog.cloudcache.net/why-mmap-has-no-significant-effect-in-my-code

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

memory mapped file. I treats the file as if it were a chunk of memory instead of a file. Depending on the size of the file and the amount of memory available it may not make a difference. Benchmark to confirm. On 15.01.2022 15:45, Paul Procacci wrote: ---

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

Thanks Paul. I am surprised that mmap has that huge IO advantages comparing to the classic way. So ruby take more benefit from this mmap calling. Just get learned from your case. Regards On 15.01.2022 17:57, Paul Procacci wrote: Hey John, One more follow up and then it's bedtime for me.

Re: Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

ther, but at that point it isn't really worth the time. We're talking a couple of microseconds at best. I've included my version for your reference. Before closing, I happen to like micro benchmarks whether or not you think 'I know this benchmark is maybe meaningless' as

Benchmark for Scala, Ruby and Perl

Hello, May I show the result of my benchmark for perl5, ruby, and scala? https://blog.cloudcache.net/benchmark-for-scala-ruby-and-perl/ Welcome you to give any suggestion to me for improving this. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e

Re: Benchmark puzzle

>>>>> "MM" == Mike McClain writes: MM> Thinking the number of inerations of the benchmark loop might be MM> low enough to affect the results I doubled it and reran the above MM> command. a good trick when using benchmark is to support a command line arg

Benchmark puzzle

ran it again. Noting that the benchmark results changed markedly I ran it several times like so: mike@/deb40a:~/perl> { for i in $(seq 1 5); do echo run $i; ./split_str; done } >> split_str_times.txt Thinking the number of inerations of the benchmark loop might be low enough to a

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

2010/8/11 Chas. Owens : > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 08:39,   wrote: >> >> My theory is that 5.10.x implemented some optimizations >> that improved the speed of strftime. > snip > > Unlikely, I don't remember any big changes to strftime (it is > implemented by Perl_my_strftime in [util.c][0] if you w

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

Chas. Owens wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 08:39,   wrote: > snip >> I probably should have mentioned that the "Matt" code is >> what is currently being used in production and I need to >> profile/benchmark it against different approaches. > snip >

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

e)[3..5]; print "now: ", strftime("%Y-%m-%d", @t, $d, $m, $y), "\n", "60 days from now: ", strftime("%Y-%m-%d", @t, $d+60, $m, $y), "\n"; We can also see this penalty in the C version of the function:

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

Chas. Owens wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 08:39, wrote: > snip >> I haven't profiled it as Chas suggested, but I suspect >> the >> issue is due to the difference in perl versions. >> >> 5.8.8 on Linux >> 5.10.0 on Windows. >> >> My theory is that 5.10.x implemented some optimizations >> that i

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 08:39,   wrote: snip > I probably should have mentioned that the "Matt" code is > what is currently being used in production and I need to > profile/benchmark it against different approaches. snip Just getting rid of the stupid in your production code

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 08:39, wrote: snip > I haven't profiled it as Chas suggested, but I suspect the > issue is due to the difference in perl versions. > > 5.8.8 on Linux > 5.10.0 on Windows. > > My theory is that 5.10.x implemented some optimizations > that improved the speed of strftime. sni

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

323834/s -- -13% > Ron 370508/s 14% -- > > Matt 328731/s -- -11% > Ron 370645/s 13% -- > > -- > Charles DeRykus > Did you run that on Windows or Linux? I tested it on both and my results would indicate that the sprintf version is slower than concatenation and the res

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

On Aug 10, 8:43 am, r...@i.frys.com (Ron Bergin) wrote: > While doing some benchmark testing on both Windows and Linux, the > results of the exact same code was reversed.  A slight difference in > the percentages is understandable, but I fail to see why the results > would be reve

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

Chas. Owens wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:43, Ron Bergin > wrote: > snip >>    my $BDtsSQLdate = >> "$Byear$Bmon$Bmday$Bhour$Bmin$Bsec"; > snip > > I seem to recall reading something on p5p recently about > string > concatenations being slower on Win32 machines for some > reason. Since >

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:12, wrote: > Shawn H Corey wrote: >> On 10-08-10 11:43 AM, Ron Bergin wrote: >>> While doing some benchmark testing on both Windows and >>> Linux, the >>> results of the exact same code was reversed.  A slight >>> differ

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:53, Shawn H Corey wrote: > On 10-08-10 11:43 AM, Ron Bergin wrote: >> >> While doing some benchmark testing on both Windows and Linux, the >> results of the exact same code was reversed.  A slight difference in >> the percentages is understand

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:43, Ron Bergin wrote: > While doing some benchmark testing on both Windows and Linux, the > results of the exact same code was reversed.  A slight difference in > the percentages is understandable, but I fail to see why the results > would be reversed.  C

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

Shawn H Corey wrote: > On 10-08-10 11:43 AM, Ron Bergin wrote: >> While doing some benchmark testing on both Windows and >> Linux, the >> results of the exact same code was reversed. A slight >> difference in >> the percentages is understandable, but I fail to s

Re: Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

On 10-08-10 11:43 AM, Ron Bergin wrote: While doing some benchmark testing on both Windows and Linux, the results of the exact same code was reversed. A slight difference in the percentages is understandable, but I fail to see why the results would be reversed. Could someone shed some light on

Opposite benchmark results between Linux and Windows

While doing some benchmark testing on both Windows and Linux, the results of the exact same code was reversed. A slight difference in the percentages is understandable, but I fail to see why the results would be reversed. Could someone shed some light on this issue? First the benchmark results

RE: Understanding Benchmark results

> -Original Message- > From: John Doe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:50 PM > To: beginners@perl.org > Subject: Re: Understanding Benchmark results > > Steve Bertrand am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2006 18.24: > > Hi all, > >

Re: Understanding Benchmark results

On 1/10/06, Steve Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to ensure the most efficient possible run, I've been doing tests > with benchmark. Hey, this is no place for empirical evidence! :-) > Benchmark: running a, b, each for at least 10 CPU seconds... > a: 1

Re: Understanding Benchmark results

ust have a reason not to sort the values while retrieving them from the database - or is it not a SQL db?) > Just to ensure the most efficient possible run, I've been doing tests > with benchmark. > > I'll post the relevant code, then the results. What I want to know is >

Understanding Benchmark results

Hi all, I've a project on the go, where I must compare a single field of more than 3 million database records, then sort them largest to smallest. The field will contain up to a 6 digit integer. Just to ensure the most efficient possible run, I've been doing tests with benchmark. I&#

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

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.

Re: odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

antity rbh_quantity rbp_quantity ship_on_account shipping_id_number order_number } }; }, 1:17pm {48} localhost:/home/webadmin>$ perl bench.pl Benchmark: running Foreach, Foreach2, HashSlice, Map for at least 5 CPU seconds... Foreach: 13 wallclock secs ( 5.32 usr + 0.02 sys =

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 second

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 second

odd benchmark result, map vs foreach

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 wallclock secs ( 5.24

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

renard wrote: BE AWARE THAT THE BENCHMARK PROVIDES INCORRECT RESULTS. Thnaks, I was aware of that, but still wanted a general idea :) The tested code is within an anonymous subroutine while this does executes, the results differ dramitcally from the results when the tested code is enclosed

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

The slice version took about 10 seconds, the grep one took more than 1 minute. Marcello Thanks Marcello! Your example, John's. and renards have been very helpful to help see the point someone else was trying to make about watching what you include in your benchmark. I appreciate your

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

, @k; print "hi" if grep /^7$/, @k; print "hi" if grep /^9$/, @k; print "hi" if grep /^11$/, @k; Benchmark: timing 500 iterations of grep, slice... grep: 3.65945 wallclock secs ( 2.33 usr + 0.04 sys = 2.37 CPU) @ 2109704.64/s (n=500) slice: 2.379

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

tion all at once ;p I appreciate your input, I'll be more careful of the way I benchmark next time :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

#!/usr/bin/perl use warnings; use strict; use Benchmark 'cmpthese'; my @k = qw( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ); cmpthese( -10, { exists => sub { my $count = 0; my %hash; @hash{ @k } = (); for my $num ( 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 ) { $count++ if exist

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

; print "hi" if exists $n{7}; print "hi" if exists $n{9}; print "hi" if exists $n{11}; grep: use strict; use warnings; my @k=qw(1 2 3 4 5 6); print "hi" if grep /^1$/, @k; print "hi" if grep /^3$/, @k; print "hi" if grep /^5$/, @k; print

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

brow." :) And I stand by that ... Such is the fallacy of the benchmark: "hah! Technique Foo was ten times faster than Technique Bar!" But, if one takes 5 microseconds and the other takes 50, they're both going to be blown out of the water by the first page-fault that crosses t

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

Thanks for your input :) Finally, there were serious errors in your methodology in your Serious? I thought "in the Big Picture, it won't matter a gnats eyebrow." :) original benchmark. It turns out the printing dominated the total That is why I made both identical except for the

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

Bakken, Luke wrote: You have to stop spending so much time playing with all this bogus benchmarking :) It not bogus :) Its an example to find the best method for a project. If you prefer I'll ask the question I was trying to answer with the benchmark: Assuming you have an array of 0-15 ele

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

print "hi" if $n{11}; What if it's value is 0, '', or undef? It would exist but your test would miss it :) In that case "defined" would be a beter function to use. ok, but I'm still not interested in the value of the key I;'m interested inthe key, so why not exists since its made for hashes :)

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

l Evil. > If you prefer I'll ask the question I was trying to answer with the > benchmark: > > Assuming you have an array of 0-15 elements is it quicker/more efficient to: > > 1) create a hash slice and use exists when checking for specific ones > or > 2) grep a

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

- Original Message - From: "JupiterHost.Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:37 am Subject: Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness... > > > > > Just as an FYI, you don't need "exists" in your code at all.

RE: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

> > You have to stop spending so much time playing with all this bogus > > benchmarking :) > > It not bogus :) Its an example to find the best method for a project. > > If you prefer I'll ask the question I was trying to answer with the > benchmark: > &

RE: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested: > Just as an FYI, you don't need "exists" in your code at all. > It is just a waste of time in your example. Should be beter writen as: > > print "hi" if $n{11}; Bad idea, if you consider this: $n{'oops'} = 0; print "hi" if $n{'oops'}; print "ho" if exists $n{'oop

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

Just as an FYI, you don't need "exists" in your code at all. It is just a waste of time in your example. Should be beter writen as: print "hi" if $n{11}; What if it's value is 0, '', or undef? It would exist but your test would miss it :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additio

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

- Original Message - From: "JupiterHost.Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:01 am Subject: Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness... > > You have to stop spending so much time playing with all this bogus > > benchmarking :)

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

You have to stop spending so much time playing with all this bogus benchmarking :) It not bogus :) Its an example to find the best method for a project. If you prefer I'll ask the question I was trying to answer with the benchmark: Assuming you have an array of 0-15 elements is it quicker

Re: hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

s; > my @k=qw(1 2 3 4 5 6); > print "hi" if grep /^1$/, @k; > print "hi" if grep /^3$/, @k; > print "hi" if grep /^5$/, @k; > print "hi" if grep /^7$/, @k; > print "hi" if grep /^9$/, @k; > print "hi" if grep /^11$/,

hash slice/exists vs. grep benchmark weirdness...

t; if exists $n{7}; print "hi" if exists $n{9}; print "hi" if exists $n{11}; grep: use strict; use warnings; my @k=qw(1 2 3 4 5 6); print "hi" if grep /^1$/, @k; print "hi" if grep /^3$/, @k; print "hi" if grep /^5$/, @k; print "hi" i

Re: how to benchmark connection

Ing. Branislav Gerzo wrote: Hi all, anoyone could me show the start point for measuring response time of my $start = time(); # do connection my $stop = time(); my $lapse = $stop - $start; print "It took $lapse seconds\n"; search http://search.cpan.org for Time::HiRes The 1st 3 results look very pr

how to benchmark connection

Hi all, anoyone could me show the start point for measuring response time of some server on some port ? I don't want ICMP ping. I'd like to know time, when server send, that connection was succesful. Thanks. -=x=- Skontrolované antivírovým programom NOD32 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL P

Re: Interpreting Benchmark test

From: Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My first foray into Benchmark with the code below produced these > results; > > The file is 22000 lines, and there are 2 matches in the file. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] PerlScripts]$ perl benchmark.pl > > Regex with modifer >

Interpreting Benchmark test

My first foray into Benchmark with the code below produced these results; The file is 22000 lines, and there are 2 matches in the file. [EMAIL PROTECTED] PerlScripts]$ perl benchmark.pl Regex with modifer YES YES timethis 100: 5 wallclock secs ( 4.84 usr + 0.50 sys = 5.34 CPU

RE: specify the special tag :hireswallclock for Benchmark

> How does one "specify the special tag :hireswallclock for > Benchmark" as mentioned here: > http://search.cpan.org/~nwclark/perl-5.8.2/lib/Benchmark.pm#:hireswallclock Found it: use Benchmark ':hireswallclock'; Duh! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: specify the special tag :hireswallclock for Benchmark

> > How does one "specify the special tag :hireswallclock for Benchmark" as mentioned here: > http://search.cpan.org/~nwclark/perl-5.8.2/lib/Benchmark.pm#:hireswallclock > > TIA > > DMuey Remember this is open source, you can check yourself... incidentally it

specify the special tag :hireswallclock for Benchmark

How does one "specify the special tag :hireswallclock for Benchmark" as mentioned here: http://search.cpan.org/~nwclark/perl-5.8.2/lib/Benchmark.pm#:hireswallclock TIA DMuey -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://l

Re: perldoc perltoc WAS Using Benchmark module

Jerry Rocteur wrote: > In as much as perldoc is your friend (Just like Google ;-) I find when > you first use perldoc you get awfully confused as to which one to look > for. > > I like to use perldoc perltoc and of course > http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.8.0/pod/perltoc.html is the bees knees.. > >

Re: perldoc perltoc WAS Using Benchmark module

On Wednesday, Nov 26, 2003, at 12:21 US/Pacific, Jerry Rocteur wrote: [..] In as much as perldoc is your friend (Just like Google ;-) I find when you first use perldoc you get awfully confused as to which one to look for. I like to use perldoc perltoc and of course

perldoc perltoc WAS Using Benchmark module

On Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003, at 20:11 Europe/Brussels, drieux wrote: On Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003, at 10:29 US/Pacific, Paul Harwood wrote: [..] Perfect, thanks! [..] There are "Clear and Compelling" reasons why we thump on folks about 'perldoc' is your friend. For the life of me I can never remember t

Re: Using Benchmark module

On Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003, at 10:29 US/Pacific, Paul Harwood wrote: [..] Perfect, thanks! [..] There are "Clear and Compelling" reasons why we thump on folks about 'perldoc' is your friend. For the life of me I can never remember the odd bits that are in Perl - yet, with but a brief waltz with you

Re: Using Benchmark module

On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 17:13 US/Pacific, Paul Harwood wrote: [..] Can Benchmark be used to gather performance data on a complete script rather than just a portion of code? [..] It is not what it was intended to do, And if you do the perldoc Benchmark you will notice that it references Devel

Using Benchmark module

Can Benchmark be used to gather performance data on a complete script rather than just a portion of code?

Re: DBI Query rows Benchmark

On Sunday, September 7, 2003, at 12:33 PM, Pablo Fischer wrote: Thanks!!! El día Sunday 07 September 2003 7:59 a Bob Showalter mandó el siguiente correo: Pablo Fischer wrote: Hello! I have a questionto those lovers of DBI and Databases: which method is faster to know the number of rows of a quer

Re: DBI Query rows Benchmark

Thanks!!! El día Sunday 07 September 2003 7:59 a Bob Showalter mandó el siguiente correo: > Pablo Fischer wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I have a questionto those lovers of DBI and Databases: which method > > is faster to know the number of rows of a query: > > > > $sth->rows > > > > or > > > > my quer

Re: DBI Query rows Benchmark

Pablo Fischer wrote: > Hello! > > I have a questionto those lovers of DBI and Databases: which method > is faster to know the number of rows of a query: > > $sth->rows > > or > > my query but with a COUNT(id) and retrieve the value with: > > $query->bind_columns(undef, \$total); > > The table its '

DBI Query rows Benchmark

Hello! I have a questionto those lovers of DBI and Databases: which method is faster to know the number of rows of a query: $sth->rows or my query but with a COUNT(id) and retrieve the value with: $query->bind_columns(undef, \$total); The table its 'big' cause it will manage like 12,000 row

Re: Benchmark times

Thanks to all! Im going to check the requirements (memory, CPU, etc). Thanks! El día Sunday 24 August 2003 1:45 a Pablo Fischer mandó el siguiente correo: > Hi! > > This maybe its not a Perl question. > > I have a system (with 3 classes), that works in this order: > > > * Check in FTP for new f

Re: Benchmark times

Pablo Fischer wrote: > > This maybe its not a Perl question. > > I have a system (with 3 classes), that works in this order: > > > * Check in FTP for new files > * Download new Files > * Unzip those files (.zip files) > * Each file has 3000 lines, and there are like 10 files (30,000 lines), So I >

Re: Benchmark times

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 09:35:39AM +0200 Janek Schleicher wrote: > Pablo Fischer wrote at Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:45:42 +: > > Exists a website with benckmark running times in Perl? > > http://www.google.com/search?q=benchmark+perl+programming+languages Benchmark between languag

Re: Benchmark times

sh > > How good its to do this in 10 seconds? It's always possible, you'll only need a computer that is expensive enough. However, if my guess of 3 MB is right, it should be easy with nowadays desktop pcs in every language. > Exists a website with benckmark running times in Perl? h

Re: Benchmark times

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:45:42 +, Pablo Fischer wrote: > I have a system (with 3 classes), that works in this order: > [...deleted...] > How good its to do this in 10 seconds? > Exists a website with benckmark running times in Perl? How good is it??? Depends on your goals and your hardware. It s

Benchmark times

Hi! This maybe its not a Perl question. I have a system (with 3 classes), that works in this order: * Check in FTP for new files * Download new Files * Unzip those files (.zip files) * Each file has 3000 lines, and there are like 10 files (30,000 lines), So I need to parse the 30,000 lines and

Re: String manipulation benchmark

From: "John W. Krahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Pavle Lukic wrote: > > Problem > > Given a string and a pattern, construct new string > > by removing part of the string equal to pattern. > > Remove only first occurrence of the pattern. > > > > Problem solutions > > > > Solution #1 ($x = $a) =~ s/\Q$b

RE: String manipulation benchmark

nd perhaps why the second takes appx half the time to do? I'd love to understand this better. Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: John W. Krahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: String manipulation benchmark

Re: String manipulation benchmark

Pavle Lukic wrote: > > Hi Hello, > I did a little benchmarking in regard to the > string manipulation issue raised on this forum. > > Here are relevant parameters and benchmark results. > > Problem > Given a string and a pattern, construct new string > by removi

String manipulation benchmark

Hi I did a little benchmarking in regard to the string manipulation issue raised on this forum. Here are relevant parameters and benchmark results. Problem Given a string and a pattern, construct new string by removing part of the string equal to pattern. Remove only first occurrence of the

Re: Looking for a perl benchmark suite

"Beau E. Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi - > > I can't seem to find a good benchmark suite for perl. > I looked through CPAN and found benchmarking tools, but > not a ready-to-go suite. > >

RE: Looking for a perl benchmark suite

Thanks Paul - I'll try it. Aloha => Beau. -Original Message- From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 5:47 AM To: Beau E. Cox Cc: 'Beginners Subject: Re: Looking for a perl benchmark suite On Sat, Jan 04,

Re: Looking for a perl benchmark suite

On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 05:07:41AM -1000, Beau E. Cox wrote: > I can't seem to find a good benchmark suite for perl. > I looked through CPAN and found benchmarking tools, but > not a ready-to-go suite. I think the closest we have is perlbench. http://search.cpan.org/author/GAAS/

Looking for a perl benchmark suite

Hi - I can't seem to find a good benchmark suite for perl. I looked through CPAN and found benchmarking tools, but not a ready-to-go suite. I don't need anything too fancy. I have compiled perl 5.8 on windows with the MS free VC7 std. compiler (which doesn't have optimization) a

Re: benchmark

put. > >I have looked at the benchmark module, but am not to sure about it. >Should I be looking elsewhere? If you're concerned about a time interval so small that the overhead imposed by Benchmark's timeit() routine is significant, you're probably measuring the wrong thi

benchmark

Folks, What would be the most efficient, accurate way to time a sub routine/function/script? I am looking to time some parsing routines in my perl script, but need it to be accurate and not cause overhead/skew the output. I have looked at the benchmark module, but am not to sure about it