Re^2: Benchmark results | localizing $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR vs spliting contents of file on $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR

[Anonymous Monk]

in reply to Re: Benchmark results | localizing $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR vs spliting contents of file on $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR
in thread Benchmark results | localizing $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR vs spliting contents of file on $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR

-100 is too long

#!/usr/bin/perl
## spin-up hard-disk, init cache ;)
Split(); IRS_while(); IRS_map();

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>

irate/tyerate

           Rate       IRS_map    Split      IRS_while
IRS_map    7682/s     --         0.83       0.81
Split      9284/s     1.21       --         0.97
IRS_while  9529/s     1.24       1.03       --

And from memory

my $removed = \ scalar read_file('removed.xml'); use File::Slurp;
             Rate   IRS_map IRS_while     Split
IRS_map   16544/s        --      -36%      -49%
IRS_while 25775/s       56%        --      -21%
Split     32686/s       98%       27%        --

irate/tyerate

           Rate       IRS_map    IRS_while  Split
IRS_map    16544/s    --         0.64       0.51
IRS_while  25775/s    1.56       --         0.79
Split      32686/s    1.98       1.27       --

[MidLifeXis]

Ok, I can agree with that - I don't see how that changes the results. Changed to -3.

             Rate   IRS_map     Split IRS_while
IRS_map    9659/s        --      -26%      -28%
Split     13017/s       35%        --       -3%
IRS_while 13379/s       39%        3%        --

Considering that a lot of time is in I/O (open and readline), I wonder if the differences between our results are due more to I/O characteristics on our systems than to the algorithm itself.