Re: map vs for\foreach.

sorry I misunderstood your question, looked like you are comparing $a[$_] = int(rand (100)) for(0..10000000);

for(0..10000000) iterates dynamically but map{...}@a flattens the list which results in shuffling memory...

Better try @a in both cases and the results should level.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)}

Comment on Re: map vs for\foreach. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: map vs for\foreach. by builat (Monk) on Mar 11, 2015 at 14:28 UTC
You right. But.. `foreach(@a){$_+=1;}; real 0m3.756s user 0m3.588s sys 0m0.120s` [download] `map{$_+= 1} @a; real 0m5.233s user 0m5.056s sys 0m0.164s` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: map vs for\foreach. by LanX (Saint) on Mar 11, 2015 at 14:36 UTC
Sorry I misunderstood your question (see update in meantime), but it can still be the same effect that `for` tries to be clever and iterates @a, while `map` is flattening. Output with `perl -MO=Terse` seems to indicate this... Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)} PS: Je suis Charlie!	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: map vs for\foreach. by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 13, 2015 at 17:35 UTC
`for (@a)` is indeed optimized to not place the elements of `@a` on the stack. `for ((),@a)` would prevent the optimization.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: map vs for\foreach. by builat (Monk) on Mar 11, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
Thx. For this info. It new for me.	[reply]
Re^5: map vs for\foreach. by LanX (Saint) on Mar 11, 2015 at 14:56 UTC