If his quickly means faster, let's compare those two solutions:
use Benchmark qw(timethese); use strict; use warnings; my @array = (1 .. 100000); timethese(100, {granfather => \&grandfather, usual => \&usual}); sub grandfather { return 1 if grep {$_ == 100000} @array; } sub usual { for my $a (@array) { return 1 if ($a == 100000); } return 0; }
If the element we serach is at the end, grandfather's is a little bit faster:
Benchmark: timing 100 iterations of granfather, usual... granfather: 4 wallclock secs ( 3.58 usr + 0.00 sys = 3.58 CPU) @ 27 +.95/s (n=1 00) usual: 4 wallclock secs ( 4.13 usr + 0.00 sys = 4.13 CPU) @ 24 +.24/s (n=1 00)
But if you change the above code to search for 3 (at the beginning of the array), then the usual way is much faster:
Benchmark: timing 100 iterations of granfather, usual... granfather: 3 wallclock secs ( 3.58 usr + 0.00 sys = 3.58 CPU) @ 27 +.95/s (n=1 00) usual: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.00 CPU) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
With something in the middle say 50000, the usual way is still close to 50% faster.
Benchmark: timing 100 iterations of granfather, usual... granfather: 4 wallclock secs ( 3.69 usr + 0.03 sys = 3.72 CPU) @ 26 +.89/s (n=1 00) usual: 2 wallclock secs ( 2.08 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.08 CPU) @ 48 +.12/s (n=1 00)
Now you know which direction it is pointing to ;-)
In reply to Re^2: how to quickly tell if number is in an array
by pg
in thread how to quickly tell if number is in an array
by redss
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |