Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Benchmark, -s versus schwartzian (vs hash)

by tye (Cardinal)
on Aug 23, 2004 at 02:26 UTC ( #385001=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Benchmark, -s versus schwartzian
in thread Benchmark, -s versus schwartzian

I don't see why you'd be surprised that creating a single hash would be faster than creating a ton of tiny anonymous arrays. (:

Yes, I realize you expected the hash lookups to be slower than the array lookups. But my first paragraph explains why the hash method will be faster in many cases. Then there is also the fact that a lexical hash avoids having to dereference a reference.

I'm curious which comparison routines get optimized. Unfortunately, the details on that appear to be undocumented (either not mentioned at all or simply glossed over as "many"). I guess I'll have to find and read source code when I'm at a better location for doing that.

- tye        


Comment on Re^2: Benchmark, -s versus schwartzian (vs hash)
Re^3: Benchmark, -s versus schwartzian (vs hash)
by ambrus (Abbot) on Aug 23, 2004 at 08:15 UTC

    Now that I think of it again, I see the flaw in my argument.

    I thought that creating the hash and creating the arrays shouldn't matter in the overall time, as it is done much fewer times than the lookups. The flaw (which might be already apparent for you) is that the lookups are not done much more times than building the arrays, only log(n) times moer often if there are n elements.

    The calculation yields these times: you do the difficult computation (-s here) n times, plus:

    Schwartzian:
    Allocating n small arrays, plus n*log(n) array lookups. This means about O(n*log(n)) time, supposing you have a fast malloc.
    Strange:
    Creating a hash of n elements, plus n*log(n) hash lookups. This means about O(n*log(n)*log(n)) time.

    What I'd like to know now is whether my variant of the Schwartzian transform is generally faster than the original one, or does it happen only in this case? It's only a 15% gain here (Update: even fewer with the larger data set), so it might not mean anything.

    Yet one more thing. I've just done some more benchmarking. I've added some other variants in creating the hash:

    sub sort_new { my %h; @h{@all} = map {-s $_} @all; @results = sort { $h{$a}<=>$h{$b} } @all; } sub sort_new2 { my %h = map {$_, -s $_} @all; @results = sort { $h{$a}<=>$h{$b} } @all; } sub sort_new3 { my %h; keys %h = @all; @h{@all} = map {-s $_} @all; @results = sort { $h{$a}<=>$h{$b} } @all; } sub sort_new4 { my %h; keys %h = @all; %h = map {$_, -s $_} @all; @results = sort { $h{$a}<=>$h{$b} } @all; }
    I am somewhat surprised on the results, I'd have thought that method 2 would be faster than method 1 but no:

        The node you've mentioned actually uses an even faster form of the Schwartzian transform I've completely forgot about.

        Thus, I've added it to my benchmark too:

        sub sort_arr { my @h = map -s, @all; @results = @all[sort {$h[$a]<=>$h[$b]} 0..@h-1]; }

        The results are amazing: this form is about 1.5 times as efficent than any of the other ones.

Re^3: Benchmark, -s versus schwartzian (vs hash)
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 23, 2004 at 09:19 UTC
    I'm curious which comparison routines get optimized.
    No block, $a <=> $b, $b <=> $a, $a cmp $b and $b cmp $a.
    I don't see why you'd be surprised that creating a single hash would be faster than creating a ton of tiny anonymous arrays.
    No lookup would even be faster. With a GRT you don't use block with sort, and hence, no array or hash lookup.
    use Benchmark "cmpthese"; our @files = glob "/bin/*"; our (@o, @s, @g); cmpthese -1 => { ordinary => '@o = sort {-s $a <=> -s $b} @files', st => '@s = map $_ -> [0], sort {$a -> [1] <=> $b -> [1]} map [$_ => -s], @files', grt => '@g = map substr ($_, 8), sort map sprintf ("%08d%s", -s, $_), @files', }; die unless "@o" eq "@s" && "@o" eq "@g"; __END__ Rate ordinary st grt ordinary 684/s -- -54% -63% st 1492/s 118% -- -20% grt 1864/s 172% 25% --
Re^3: Benchmark, -s versus schwartzian (vs hash)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 23, 2004 at 10:57 UTC

    B::Deparse has the option -x$LEVEL, which at level 7 reveals the internal representation of the code quite closely. Then there's the various other modules like B::Terse which will show you exactly what opcodes you get. That should be enough to examine whether any particular construct gets optimized; of course it won't provide a full overview of all the possible optimizations.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://385001]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-09-20 13:43 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (159 votes), past polls