comment on

In the section Q&A under Is there a shorter way to create a german time string? I posted some code that's still running in some of my older scripts. Yesterday I got back to the snippet in a printed version and wondered.
I knew I did a benchmark with using localtime and Date::Manip and performance didn't differ significantly for me. Now I still wondered if I could make that code more efficient.
So I tried the following benchmark:

#! /usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

use Benchmark qw(timethese);

sub zeit_mit_func {

# old function calling localtime several times (slightly modified)
    my $wtag = ("So","Mo","Di","Mi","Do","Fr","Sa")[(localtime)[6]];
    my $mtag = sprintf("%02d", (localtime)[3]);
    my $monat = sprintf("%02d", (localtime)[4]+1);
    my $jahr = (localtime)[5] + 1900;
    my $stunde = sprintf("%02d", (localtime)[2]);
    my $minute = sprintf("%02d", (localtime)[1]);
    my $zeit = "$wtag $mtag\.$monat\.$jahr - $stunde\:$minute";
    return $zeit;
}
sub zeit_mit_array {
# new function calling localtime only once assigning it to an array
    my @zeit = localtime;
    my $wtag = ("So","Mo","Di","Mi","Do","Fr","Sa")[$zeit[6]];
    my $mtag = sprintf("%02d", $zeit[3]);
    my $monat = sprintf("%02d", $zeit[4]+1);
    my $jahr = $zeit[5] + 1900;
    my $stunde = sprintf("%02d", $zeit[2]);
    my $minute = sprintf("%02d", $zeit[1]);
    my $zeit = "$wtag $mtag\.$monat\.$jahr - $stunde\:$minute";
    return $zeit;
}
timethese (1E5, {
    'func' => \&zeit_mit_func,
    'array' => \&zeit_mit_array,
});
[download]

The result was (as I had expected)

Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of array, func...
     array: 11 wallclock secs (10.82 usr +  0.00 sys = 10.82 CPU) @ 92
+42.14/s (n=100000)
      func: 33 wallclock secs (32.68 usr +  0.00 sys = 32.68 CPU) @ 30
+59.98/s (n=100000)
[download]

on a WinME with ActivePerl Build 628. I also tested it on a FreeBSD 4.0, Perl 5.005 on an old notebook, where the difference was even more significant.

So this is to show - never trust old code. Don't get into the habit of copy and paste.
Make it a habit to review old code, It'll do your code and your coding expertise good.
It already has helped me gain some insights - and I'm sure it'll continue doing so.

neophyte Niederrhein.pm

In reply to old code revisited by neophyte

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks