($a,$b,$c,$d)=split;
# I get the value of fourth field in $d and do not use$a,$b,$c
[download]

update:
I seem to be getting different times on each run (and different winners too), but over the whole split does appear to be the winner. I've changed the regex to a more condensed version.

---




#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use Benchmark 'timethese';
use strict;

print "split: ", use_split(), "\n";
print "regex: ", use_regex(), "\n";

sub use_split {
    $_ = "  one two three    four five six";
    split;        # See Jouke's post (this may be faster). This is dep
+recated though.
    return $_[3];
}

sub use_regex {
    $_ = "  one two three    four five six";
    s/^\s+//;
    m/^(?:[^\s]+\s+){3}([^\s]+)/;
    return $1;
}

timethese(-10, {        regex => \&use_regex,
                        split => \&use_split });
timethese(-50, {        regex => \&use_regex,
                        split => \&use_split });
timethese(-100, {       regex => \&use_regex,
                        split => \&use_split });
[download]


The results (updated to 10, 50 and 100) (...drumroll please...):

Benchmark: running regex, split, each for at least 10 CPU seconds...
     regex: 12 wallclock secs (10.64 usr +  0.00 sys = 10.64 CPU) @ 40
+522.18/s (n=431156)
     split: 10 wallclock secs (10.02 usr +  0.00 sys = 10.02 CPU) @ 37
+290.82/s (n=373654)
[download]

and:

Benchmark: running regex, split, each for at least 50 CPU seconds...
     regex: 68 wallclock secs (54.11 usr +  0.13 sys = 54.24 CPU) @ 40
+957.93/s (n=2221558)
     split: 56 wallclock secs (49.95 usr +  0.05 sys = 50.00 CPU) @ 38
+128.48/s (n=1906424)
[download]

and

Benchmark: running regex, split, each for at least 100 CPU seconds...
     regex: 136 wallclock secs (110.38 usr +  0.32 sys = 110.70 CPU) @
+ 40548.93/s (n=4488766)
     split: 112 wallclock secs (100.00 usr +  0.02 sys = 100.02 CPU) @
+ 38995.86/s (n=3900366)
[download]


[~]

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
$_="one  two three    four";
split;
print $_[2];
[download]

Be careful ... if you'd used warnings you'd see:

Use of implicit split to @_ is deprecated at <blah blah>.

If you really want the third field only, why not use print +(split)[2]?

-dlc