Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)

by ikegami (Pope)
on Mar 08, 2018 at 18:36 UTC ( #1210525=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)
in thread Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)

A better way of reading your results:

Each chomp took 1/(87.8/s)/100000 = 114 ns (including overhead) Each chop took 1/(91.6/s)/100000 = 109 ns (including overhead) Each nada took 1/(109/s)/100000 = 92 ns

so

Each chomp took 22 ns Each chop took 17 ns

It's not surprising that chop is faster than chomp (since what it does is far, far simpler), but they are both seriously fast! What this means is that trying to optimize this is a waste of time; there is far more "fat" to trim elsewhere.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1210525]
help
Chatterbox?
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2018-07-19 15:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    It has been suggested to rename Perl 6 in order to boost its marketing potential. Which name would you prefer?















    Results (411 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?