The map operator might look nice, but it isn't always the most suitable operator to use. It is a very powerful tool, but IMHO it is not the best for this job.
The classic idiom for this type of "set" operation is to use the 'x' (multiplication) operator, in combination with hash slices. e.g.
my (%hash, @array); @array = ('one', 'two', 'three'); @hash{@array} = (1) x @array; if (exists $hash{'one'}) { .... }
To demonstrate just how efficient this method is, I have written a small test case using Benchmark.pm. I've tried to include all the methods which have been shown in reply so far. I'm not guaranteeing that Perl hasn't optimised away some of the operations (which could skew the results), but I hope that it provides a fairly accurate measure of the different approaches. If anyone can see any glaring errors or ommisions, please reply.
use Benchmark qw(timethese); my $iterations = 300_000; my @array = ( "best", 1..49, "average", 51..99, "worst" ); for my $search (qw( best average worst )) { print "Timing '$search' case:\n"; timethese($iterations, { 'map' => sub { my %hash = (); %hash = map { $_=>1 } @array; if ($hash{$search}) { 1 } }, 'xop' => sub { my %hash = (); @hash{@array} = (1) x @array; if ($hash{$search}) { 1 } }, 'for1' => sub { my %hash = (); for (@array) { $hash{$_} = 1 } if ($hash{$search}) { 1 } }, 'for2' => sub { for (@array) { if ($_ eq $search) { 1; last } } }, 'for3' => sub { if (do { my $f=0; $_ eq $search and ($f=1),last for @array; $f }) { 1 } }, 'grep' => sub { if (grep $search eq $_, @array) { 1 } }, }); } __END__ Timing 'best' case: Benchmark: timing 300000 iterations of for1, for2, for3, grep, map, xo +p... for1: 116 wallclock secs (117.60 usr + 0.00 sys = 117.60 CPU) @ + 2551.02/s (n=300000) for2: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.21 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.21 CPU) @ 24 +7933.88/s (n=300000) for3: 3 wallclock secs ( 2.36 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.36 CPU) @ 12 +7118.64/s (n=300000) grep: 27 wallclock secs (26.20 usr + 0.00 sys = 26.20 CPU) @ 11 +450.38/s (n=300000) map: 236 wallclock secs (234.47 usr + 0.00 sys = 234.47 CPU) @ + 1279.48/s (n=300000) xop: 93 wallclock secs (92.93 usr + 0.00 sys = 92.93 CPU) @ 32 +28.24/s (n=300000) Timing 'average' case: Benchmark: timing 300000 iterations of for1, for2, for3, grep, map, xo +p... for1: 111 wallclock secs (110.18 usr + 0.00 sys = 110.18 CPU) @ + 2722.82/s (n=300000) for2: 20 wallclock secs (18.35 usr + 0.00 sys = 18.35 CPU) @ 16 +348.77/s (n=300000) for3: 20 wallclock secs (18.29 usr + 0.00 sys = 18.29 CPU) @ 16 +402.41/s (n=300000) grep: 26 wallclock secs (26.09 usr + 0.00 sys = 26.09 CPU) @ 11 +498.66/s (n=300000) map: 220 wallclock secs (219.22 usr + 0.00 sys = 219.22 CPU) @ + 1368.49/s (n=300000) xop: 93 wallclock secs (92.83 usr + 0.00 sys = 92.83 CPU) @ 32 +31.71/s (n=300000) Timing 'worst' case: Benchmark: timing 300000 iterations of for1, for2, for3, grep, map, xo +p... for1: 109 wallclock secs (109.24 usr + 0.00 sys = 109.24 CPU) @ + 2746.25/s (n=300000) for2: 35 wallclock secs (35.65 usr + 0.00 sys = 35.65 CPU) @ 84 +15.15/s (n=300000) for3: 34 wallclock secs (34.06 usr + 0.00 sys = 34.06 CPU) @ 88 +07.99/s (n=300000) grep: 26 wallclock secs (26.19 usr + 0.00 sys = 26.19 CPU) @ 11 +454.75/s (n=300000) map: 222 wallclock secs (222.51 usr + 0.00 sys = 222.51 CPU) @ + 1348.25/s (n=300000) xop: 93 wallclock secs (93.05 usr + 0.00 sys = 93.05 CPU) @ 32 +24.07/s
Cheers,
-- Dave :-)
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Set Operators
by DaveH
in thread Set Operators
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |