Re^5: Undefined vs empty string

[BrowserUk]

Speed very much depends on what is the most likely value to occur in the tests. length for sure is not always faster.

Hm. You seem to be implying that the speed of length varies with the length of the string?

Whilst that would make sense with C; it makes no sense at all with length, which doesn't need to scan the string to find its length.

Which makes me a little suspicious of the benchmark.

Update: Of course; the affect you are seeing it due to stringification of numeric values.

[Tux]

Wrong impression. If you look at the figures, there is no difference between '0', '1' and "xxxx…". I known the speed of length doesn't depend on the length of the PV (unless of course it is overloaded or magic). I was actually kind of hoping that the example showed just that.

[BrowserUk]

I was actually kind of hoping that the example showed just that.

Here's an even mix of possible values including the empty string which you omitted, and the results are too close to call.:

#! perl -slw
use strict;
use Benchmark qw[ cmpthese ];

our @tests = (
    (undef)  x1000,
    ('')     x1000,
    (chr(0)) x1000,
    (0)      x1000,
    (1)      x1000,
    ('fred') x1000,
);
cmpthese -1, {
    a => q[ !(defined && length() ) and 1 for @tests; ],
    b => q[ !defined || $_ eq ''    and 1 for @tests; ],
};

__END__
C:\test>junk
    Rate    b    a
b 1029/s   -- -17%
a 1239/s  20%   --

C:\test>junk
    Rate   b   a
b 1065/s  -- -1%
a 1079/s  1%  --

Much of a muchness.

I guess you could get into varying the proportions of the mix commensurate with your application expectations, but ...

[Tux]

How does my defined-or solution compare on your system?

Where did I omit the empty string in

foreach $a (undef, "", 0, 1, "x" x 60) {

?

update new bench from your example. (my dor outperforms the other two consistently)

$ cat test.pl
use strict;
use Benchmark qw[ cmpthese ];

our @tests = (
    (undef)  x 1000,
    ("")     x 1000,
    (chr(0)) x 1000,
    (0)      x 1000,
    (1)      x 1000,
    ("fred") x 1000,
    );
cmpthese -1, {
    a => q[ !(defined && length() ) and 1 for @tests; ],
    b => q[ !defined || $_ eq ""    and 1 for @tests; ],
    c => q[ ($_ // "") eq ""        and 1 for @tests; ],
    };
$ repeat 5 perl test.pl
    Rate    b    a    c
b 1950/s   -- -18% -33%
a 2379/s  22%   -- -18%
c 2901/s  49%  22%   --
    Rate    b    a    c
b 1950/s   -- -22% -33%
a 2511/s  29%   -- -13%
c 2901/s  49%  16%   --
    Rate    b    a    c
b 1950/s   -- -23% -32%
a 2536/s  30%   -- -12%
c 2875/s  47%  13%   --
    Rate    b    a    c
b 1914/s   -- -22% -32%
a 2466/s  29%   -- -12%
c 2801/s  46%  14%   --
    Rate    b    a    c
b 1950/s   -- -23% -32%
a 2536/s  30%   -- -12%
c 2875/s  47%  13%   --

[ikegami]

Hm. You seem to be implying that the speed of length varies with the length of the string?

It doesn't vary for strings in the UTF8=0 format, but it does vary for strings in the UTF8=1 format. The length is cached (in a magic annotation) once discovered, though.

>perl -MDevel::Peek -e"utf8::upgrade( $x = "abc" ); Dump($x); length($
+x); Dump($x);"
SV = PV(0x7b8d54) at 0x328554
  REFCNT = 1
  FLAGS = (POK,pPOK,UTF8)
  PV = 0x7b9fac "abc"\0 [UTF8 "abc"]
  CUR = 3
  LEN = 12
SV = PVMG(0x31e8e4) at 0x328554
  REFCNT = 1
  FLAGS = (SMG,POK,pPOK,UTF8)
  IV = 0
  NV = 0
  PV = 0x7b9fac "abc"\0 [UTF8 "abc"]
  CUR = 3
  LEN = 12
  MAGIC = 0x31f17c
    MG_VIRTUAL = &PL_vtbl_utf8
    MG_TYPE = PERL_MAGIC_utf8(w)
    MG_LEN = 3

[BrowserUk]

How very strange.

The upgrading to utf has required the inspection of the bytes and conversion where necessary:

C:\test\perl -MDevel::Peek -e"utf8::upgrade( $x = qq[abc\xee] ); Dump(
+$x);"
SV = PV(0xea240) at 0x275898
  REFCNT = 1
  FLAGS = (POK,pPOK,UTF8)
  PV = 0xef178 "abc\303\256"\0 [UTF8 "abc\x{ee}"]
  CUR = 5
  LEN = 6

The original 4-bytes has been converted to (CUR=) 5, which implies (to me at least) that it could have recorded the charwise length at that point rather than having to rediscover it later.

(Also, what shell are you using that allows double quotes embedded within double quotes unescaped?)