Re: How to transpose lines faster?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: How to transpose lines faster? by rsFalse (Chaplain) on Feb 03, 2018 at 00:25 UTC
On my PC, 2e3 x 2e3 matrices: `$transposed[ $i ++ ] .= chop while $_` (incorrect): 0.6s `$transposed[ $i ++ ] .= chop while length` (correct) (by pryrt): 0.75s `$transposed[ $i ++ ] .= chop while /./` (assuming that dot match any input char): 1.35s `$transposed[ $i ++ ] .= chop while !/^$/`: 1.35s next are without reverse: `$transposed[ $i ++ ] .= $& while /./g`: 1.85s `$transposed[ $i ++ ] .= substr $_, 0, 1, '' while length`: 1.0s `$transposed[ $i ++ ] .= $_ for split //`: 1.0s `push @out, join '', map substr( $_,$i,1 ), @in` (by BrowserUK): 1.1s (pryrt's substr+substr variant ommited)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: How to transpose lines faster? by pryrt (Abbot) on Feb 03, 2018 at 02:03 UTC
I'm actually curious how my multi-substr variant would perform in your bench... because in my tests (on two different machines), and much to my surprise, mine significantly outperforms the join-map-substr. anomalous_map: 20 wallclock secs (17.09 usr + 0.16 sys = 17.25 CPU) @ + 2.03/s (n=35) anomalous_two: 17 wallclock secs (15.12 usr + 0.08 sys = 15.20 CPU) @ + 2.04/s (n=31) buk_substr: 16 wallclock secs (15.59 usr + 0.01 sys = 15.61 CPU) @ 0 +.70/s (n=11) with_chop_fixed: 16 wallclock secs (15.09 usr + 0.17 sys = 15.27 CPU) + @ 2.23/s (n=34) with_split: 16 wallclock secs (15.19 usr + 0.00 sys = 15.19 CPU) @ 0 +.86/s (n=13) with_substr: 15 wallclock secs (15.39 usr + 0.00 sys = 15.39 CPU) @ +1.75/s (n=27) Rate buk_substr with_split with_substr anomalous_ma +p anomalous_two with_chop_fixed buk_substr 0.705/s -- -18% -60% -65 +% -65% -68% with_split 0.856/s 21% -- -51% -58 +% -58% -62% with_substr 1.75/s 149% 105% -- -14 +% -14% -21% anomalous_map 2.03/s 188% 137% 16% - +- -0% -9% anomalous_two 2.04/s 189% 138% 16% 0 +% -- -8% with_chop_fixed 2.23/s 216% 160% 27% 10 +% 9% -- [download] anomalous_map: 16 wallclock secs (15.34 usr + 0.06 sys = 15.41 CPU) @ + 1.49/s (n=23) anomalous_two: 15 wallclock secs (14.98 usr + 0.02 sys = 15.00 CPU) @ + 1.60/s (n=24) buk_substr: 17 wallclock secs (16.56 usr + 0.03 sys = 16.59 CPU) @ 0 +.30/s (n=5) with_chop_fixed: 15 wallclock secs (15.22 usr + 0.02 sys = 15.23 CPU) + @ 1.51/s (n=23) with_split: 17 wallclock secs (17.41 usr + 0.00 sys = 17.41 CPU) @ 0 +.34/s (n=6) with_substr: 15 wallclock secs (15.50 usr + 0.00 sys = 15.50 CPU) @ +1.29/s (n=20) Rate buk_substr with_split with_substr anomalous_ma +p with_chop_fixed anomalous_two buk_substr 0.301/s -- -13% -77% -80 +% -80% -81% with_split 0.345/s 14% -- -73% -77 +% -77% -78% with_substr 1.29/s 328% 274% -- -14 +% -15% -19% anomalous_map 1.49/s 395% 333% 16% - +- -1% -7% with_chop_fixed 1.51/s 401% 338% 17% 1 +% -- -6% anomalous_two 1.60/s 431% 364% 24% 7 +% 6% -- [download] And yes, the anomalous_map, anomalous_two and with_chop_fixed seemed to go back and forth a lot, even on the first system. It's not had a lot of runs, so the timing's not very accurate. Trying with 200x200 on the second machine, to give it more runs per function: `Rate buk_substr with_split with_substr with_chop_fix +ed anomalous_map anomalous_two buk_substr 29.1/s -- -15% -77% -7 +8% -78% -80% with_split 34.3/s 18% -- -73% -7 +4% -74% -76% with_substr 127/s 337% 271% -- - +2% -5% -12% with_chop_fixed 130/s 348% 280% 3% +-- -3% -10% anomalous_map 134/s 360% 291% 5% +3% -- -8% anomalous_two 145/s 399% 323% 14% 1 +1% 8% --` [download] <Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>	[reply] [d/l] [select]