Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot |
|
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I tried to see if there were any knobs to twiddle on this one, using dragonchild’s benchmark cases. First thing I tried: using a recursive call to alias $_. This lets you get rid of the ternary in the for list.
On my setup this is about 15% slower for the “inplace replacement of implicit $_” case, but ekes out a few percentage points on the other cases. But it let me proceed to switch from duplicate defined wantarray tests to a duplicate inner loop:
This gets back most of the lost speed in the “inplace replacement of implicit $_” case, has roughly the same performance in other void contexts, but is also about 50% faster in many other cases, including the IMHO most important one – passing a scalar and assigning to one.
Sample run: Benchmark: running undef_default_1, undef_default_2 for at least 1 CPU seconds... undef_default_1: 0 wallclock secs ( 1.05 usr + 0.01 sys = 1.06 CPU) @ 190933.96/s (n=202390) undef_default_2: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.04 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.04 CPU) @ 174121.15/s (n=181086) Rate undef_default_2 undef_default_1 undef_default_2 174121/s -- -9% undef_default_1 190934/s 10% -- Benchmark: running scalar_default_1, scalar_default_2 for at least 1 CPU seconds... scalar_default_1: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.11 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.11 CPU) @ 103321.62/s (n=114687) scalar_default_2: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.11 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.11 CPU) @ 154982.88/s (n=172031) Rate scalar_default_1 scalar_default_2 scalar_default_1 103322/s -- -33% scalar_default_2 154983/s 50% -- Benchmark: running scalar_passed_1, scalar_passed_2 for at least 1 CPU seconds... scalar_passed_1: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.09 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.09 CPU) @ 121405.50/s (n=132332) scalar_passed_2: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.04 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.04 CPU) @ 183794.23/s (n=191146) Rate scalar_passed_1 scalar_passed_2 scalar_passed_1 121406/s -- -34% scalar_passed_2 183794/s 51% -- Benchmark: running list_default_1, list_default_2 for at least 1 CPU seconds... list_default_1: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.09 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.09 CPU) @ 98641.28/s (n=107519) list_default_2: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.04 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.04 CPU) @ 150376.92/s (n=156392) Rate list_default_1 list_default_2 list_default_1 98641/s -- -34% list_default_2 150377/s 52% -- Benchmark: running list_passed_1, list_passed_2 for at least 1 CPU seconds... list_passed_1: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.07 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.07 CPU) @ 80736.45/s (n=86388) list_passed_2: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.08 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.08 CPU) @ 99554.63/s (n=107519) Rate list_passed_1 list_passed_2 list_passed_1 80736/s -- -19% list_passed_2 99555/s 23% -- Benchmark: running undef_passed_1, undef_passed_2 for at least 1 CPU seconds... undef_passed_1: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.07 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.07 CPU) @ 133980.37/s (n=143359) undef_passed_2: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.13 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.13 CPU) @ 138400.00/s (n=156392) Rate undef_passed_1 undef_passed_2 undef_passed_1 133980/s -- -3% undef_passed_2 138400/s 3% -- Makeshifts last the longest. In reply to Re: trim() magic
by Aristotle
|
|