I see, thank you everyone for answers. With these changes I'm getting same 2-1-4-3 consistent (and expected) sequence, though with less than 10% total difference, on older computer. Hashes of 100_000 keys were largest in linked article, but I understand that influence of preallocating was not its subject.

In reply to Re^2: Does "preallocating hash improve performance"? Or "using a hash slice"? by vr
in thread Does "preallocating hash improve performance"? Or "using a hash slice"? by vr

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