Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??
I suspect the redundancy and memory requirements in your one-liner is inefficient and that a while loop would be not only more efficient but more readable. Benchmark in progress ...

Update:After reviewing the original, its not exactly the same, but I think still a fair enough comparision :)

#!/usr/bin/perl -w # About the fairest comparison I could think of at the moment use strict; use Benchmark; my $file = "tst1.txt"; open(OUT, ">$file") or die "Can't open $file for output: $!"; for ("000000".."020000") { print OUT "$_=abc|def|ghi|jkl\n"; print OUT "Ignore this line\n"; } open(FH1, $file) or die "1 Can't open $file: $!"; open(FH2, $file) or die "2 Can't open $file: $!"; timethese(1, { MAPIT=>\&map_it, LOOPIT=>\&loop_it, }); close FH1; close FH2; sub map_it { my %author = map {/^\d{6}$/ ? $_ : [ split (/\|/, $_, 2 ]} map { split( /=/, $_, 2 ) } grep { /^\d{6}=[^|]+\|/ } <FH1>; } sub loop_it { my %author; while (<FH2>) { next unless /^(\d{6})=(.+)\|/; # Hmm, the above should really be: # next unless /^(\d{6})=([^|].*)\|/; # Whoops, forgot to limit the split to 2 elements here # No big deal, results are still similar $author{$1} = [ split(/\|/, $2) ]; } } # interesting different results #Under activestate perl Benchmark: timing 1 iterations of LOOPIT, MAPIT... LOOPIT: 5 wallclock secs ( 4.62 usr + 0.00 sys = 4.62 CPU) @ 0 +.22/s (n= ) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count) MAPIT: 28 wallclock secs (28.73 usr + 0.00 sys = 28.73 CPU) @ 0 +.03/s (n= ) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count) #under Cygwin perl $ ./tst Benchmark: timing 1 iterations of LOOPIT, MAPIT... LOOPIT: 4 wallclock secs ( 4.67 usr + 0.00 sys = 4.67 CPU) @ 0 +.21/s (n= ) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count) MAPIT: 5 wallclock secs ( 5.22 usr + 0.00 sys = 5.22 CPU) @ 0 +.19/s (n= ) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)

In reply to Re: (Ovid - accidental obfuscation?)Re: Perverse Unreadable Code by runrig
in thread Perverse Unreadable Code by Anonymous Monk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":



  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • Outside of code tags, you may need to use entities for some characters:
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
  • Log In?
    Username:
    Password:

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    Chatterbox?
    and the web crawler heard nothing...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others perusing the Monastery: (12)
    As of 2014-11-24 12:30 GMT
    Sections?
    Information?
    Find Nodes?
    Leftovers?
      Voting Booth?

      My preferred Perl binaries come from:














      Results (141 votes), past polls