comment on

They seem to be about the same. shift comes out slightly ahead in this test, perhaps because it simplifies the loop.

#!/usr/bin/perl

use warnings;
use strict;

use Benchmark;

timethese(1_000_000, {
  'use_shift' => sub { sub_with_shift(0..9) },
  'use_list' => sub { sub_with_list(0..9) },
  'use_direct' => sub { sub_with_direct(0..9) },
});

sub sub_with_shift
{
  my $sum = 0;
  while (@_)
  {
    $sum += shift;
  }
  $sum;
}

sub sub_with_list
{
  my(@a)=@_;
  my $sum = 0;
  $sum += $_
    for @a;
  $sum;
}

sub sub_with_direct
{
  my $sum = 0;
  $sum += $_
    for @_;
  $sum;
}
[download]

Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of use_direct, use_list, use_shift...
use_direct:  7 wallclock secs ( 6.48 usr + -0.01 sys =  6.47 CPU) @ 154559.51/s (n=1000000)
  use_list: 10 wallclock secs ( 9.85 usr +  0.06 sys =  9.91 CPU) @ 100908.17/s (n=1000000)
 use_shift:  6 wallclock secs ( 6.48 usr +  0.01 sys =  6.49 CPU) @ 154083.20/s (n=1000000)

--
sgifford's Web page

In reply to Re^3: shift vs @_ by sgifford
in thread shift vs @_ by Zadeh

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks