Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code

by remiah (Hermit)
on Oct 04, 2012 at 22:52 UTC ( #997340=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code
in thread Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code

I tried your benchmark and I also see map is faster. When I changed subs to return concatenated results, for loop becomes faster. I wonder why?

#!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use Benchmark qw/cmpthese/; my %h = map {$_ => $_} 1 .. 10000; sub test1{ my $buff=''; foreach my $key (sort keys %h) { $buff.="$key: $h{$key}\n"; } return $buff; } sub test2{ return join('', map "$_: $h{$_}\n", sort keys %h); } print test1() eq test2() ? "same\n" : "not same\n"; my %tests = ( '01_for' => \&test1, '02_map' => \&test2, ); cmpthese( -10, #for 10 cpu secs \%tests ); __DATA__ Rate 02_map 01_for 02_map 33.9/s -- -16% 01_for 40.2/s 19% --
update:
I remember previous thread. "for loop" consumes lots of memory compared to while loop.


Comment on Re^3: Efficiency of map vs. more verbose basic/fundamental code
Download Code

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://997340]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (12)
As of 2015-07-08 05:14 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (94 votes), past polls