Thanks for this. The interesting thing is that if I stringify the code to avoid the sub call then I can replicate the ordering from my original post.
I added a false value to get a sense of the cost of the increment operation. value_true is value from your version, and is obviously faster as it does less work.
use warnings; use strict; use Benchmark qw{ cmpthese }; my %h; @h{1001 .. 2000} = (1) x 1000; my ($e, $vt, $vf) = (0) x 3; $h{1002} = 0; cmpthese(-2, { exist => sub { for (0..999_999) { ++$e if exists $h{1001} } }, exist_str => 'for (0..999_999) { ++$e if exists $h{1001} }', value_true => sub { for (0..999_999) { ++$vt if $h{1001} } }, value_str => 'for (0..999_999) { ++$vt if $h{1001} }', value_false => sub { for (0..999_999) { ++$vf if $h{1002} } }, }); __DATA__ Rate exist value_true exist_str value_str val +ue_false exist 16.1/s -- -9% -23% -26% + -27% value_true 17.7/s 10% -- -15% -18% + -20% exist_str 20.9/s 29% 18% -- -4% + -6% value_str 21.7/s 34% 22% 4% -- + -2% value_false 22.1/s 37% 25% 6% 2% + --
In reply to Re^3: "exists $hash{key}" is slower than "$hash{key}"
by swl
in thread "exists $hash{key}" is slower than "$hash{key}"
by swl
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |