Re^2: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks

Re^2: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?

by wanna_code_perl (Friar)

on Dec 09, 2008 at 05:02 UTC ( [id://729086]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Re: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?
in thread Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?

Apples to oranges, but ActiveState 5.8.8 (Windows) on a significantly faster dual-core machine: 28 seconds.

Unfortunately, I no longer have any good way to run 5.6.

Comment on Re^2: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?
by trwww (Priest) on Dec 09, 2008 at 05:20 UTC

Apples to oranges...

Well the script is a constant because all three perl binaries can run it unmodified. Actually, I found 5.6 runs much faster (not surprising, it is a much slimmer app). The top run is using a system provided 5.8, and the second run is a 5.6 install I have for an app I maintain:

$ time /usr/bin/perl test.pl
Number: 232792560

real    0m29.042s
user    0m29.039s
sys     0m0.004s

$ time usr/bin/perl test.pl                   
Number: 232792560

real    0m20.968s
user    0m20.961s
sys     0m0.006s
[download]

I ran it a few times and the figures were about the same. But I agree, not really useful. It is a bit interesting though.

Regards,

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom