I reran all the tests from the Dumper prompt with the updated code I just posted in reply to ysth elsewhere in this thread. 'new_u' and 'old_u' are with DB updates, 'new' and 'old' are without. 

 new, new_u, old, old_u, each for at least 2 CPU seconds...
       new:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.04 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.04 CPU) @ 50
+5.62/s (n=1031)
     new_u:  8 wallclock secs ( 2.09 usr +  0.05 sys =  2.15 CPU) @ 23
+6.45/s (n=508)
       old:  3 wallclock secs ( 2.12 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.12 CPU) @ 13
+0.82/s (n=278)
     old_u:  7 wallclock secs ( 2.05 usr +  0.06 sys =  2.12 CPU) @ 10
+2.49/s (n=217)
       Rate old_u   old new_u   new
old_u 102/s    --  -22%  -57%  -80%
old   131/s   28%    --  -45%  -74%
new_u 236/s  131%   81%    --  -53%
new   506/s  393%  286%  114%    --

new, new_u, old, old_u, each for at least 2 CPU seconds...
       new:  3 wallclock secs ( 2.19 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.19 CPU) @ 50
+0.11/s (n=1094)
     new_u:  5 wallclock secs ( 1.94 usr +  0.12 sys =  2.06 CPU) @ 24
+6.30/s (n=508)
       old:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.13 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.13 CPU) @ 13
+5.50/s (n=289)
     old_u:  4 wallclock secs ( 2.10 usr +  0.03 sys =  2.13 CPU) @ 10
+6.43/s (n=227)
       Rate old_u   old new_u   new
old_u 106/s    --  -21%  -57%  -79%
old   136/s   27%    --  -45%  -73%
new_u 246/s  131%   82%    --  -51%
new   500/s  370%  269%  103%    --

 new, new_u, old, old_u, each for at least 2 CPU seconds...
       new:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.09 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.09 CPU) @ 51
+0.56/s (n=1065)
     new_u:  5 wallclock secs ( 1.89 usr +  0.13 sys =  2.02 CPU) @ 26
+0.94/s (n=528)
       old:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.14 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.14 CPU) @ 13
+9.21/s (n=298)
     old_u:  3 wallclock secs ( 2.01 usr +  0.03 sys =  2.04 CPU) @ 11
+1.33/s (n=227)
       Rate old_u   old new_u   new
old_u 111/s    --  -20%  -57%  -78%
old   139/s   25%    --  -47%  -73%
new_u 261/s  134%   87%    --  -49%
new   511/s  359%  267%   96%    --

[download]

Note that new_u() is still considerably faster than old_u(), and that new() has an even greater advantage over old().


---
demerphq

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    -- Gandhi

    Flux8


In reply to Re^4: patchable settings (benchmark red flag) by demerphq
in thread patchable settings by ysth

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.