slicing does not seem to include the preallocation optimization
I don't know how you can say given that the test shows no benefit from pre-allocating[1].
But the reason the test shows no benefit from pre-allocating because the test is still flawed.
Lexical variables aren't freed when they go out of scope; they are kept around for use the next time the scope is entered. That means the hash is effectively pre-allocated for all tests![2].
$ perl -MDevel::Peek -e' sub x { my %h; Dump(%h, 0); keys(%h) = 100; Dump(%h, 0); } x() for 1..3; ' 2>&1 | grep MAX MAX = 7 MAX = 127 MAX = 127 <-- Preallocated even before C<< keys(%h) = 100; >>! MAX = 127 MAX = 127 <-- Preallocated even before C<< keys(%h) = 100; >>! MAX = 127
Adding undef %h; should provide better results.
$ perl -MDevel::Peek -e' sub x { my %h; Dump(%h, 0); keys(%h) = 100; Dump(%h, 0); undef %h; } x() for 1..3; ' 2>&1 | grep MAX MAX = 7 MAX = 127 MAX = 7 MAX = 127 MAX = 7 MAX = 127
In reply to Re^3: Does "preallocating hash improve performance"? Or "using a hash slice"?
by ikegami
in thread Does "preallocating hash improve performance"? Or "using a hash slice"?
by vr
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |