Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)

by ikegami (Pope)
on Mar 08, 2018 at 18:36 UTC ( #1210525=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)
in thread Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)

A better way of reading your results:

Each chomp took 1/(87.8/s)/100000 = 114 ns (including overhead) Each chop took 1/(91.6/s)/100000 = 109 ns (including overhead) Each nada took 1/(109/s)/100000 = 92 ns

so

Each chomp took 22 ns Each chop took 17 ns

It's not surprising that chop is faster than chomp (since what it does is far, far simpler), but they are both seriously fast! What this means is that trying to optimize this is a waste of time; there is far more "fat" to trim elsewhere.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1210525]
help
Chatterbox?
[erix]: heh

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (7)
As of 2018-04-25 17:18 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?