Actually, if you agree that the following code would be valid for a benchmark, then you might be surprised.
Code:
Results (1_000_000 iterations):
Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of map_browseruk, map_browseruk_setup, map_jwkrahn, map_jwkrahn_setup, unpack, unpack_setup... map_browseruk: 16 wallclock secs (14.77 usr + 0.04 sys = 14.81 CPU) @ 67521.94/s (n=1000000) map_browseruk_setup: 9 wallclock secs ( 9.27 usr + 0.03 sys = 9.30 CPU) @ 107526.88/s (n=1000000) map_jwkrahn: 29 wallclock secs (23.17 usr + 0.04 sys = 23.21 CPU) @ 43084.88/s (n=1000000) map_jwkrahn_setup: 23 wallclock secs (20.23 usr + 0.03 sys = 20.26 CPU) @ 49358.34/s (n=1000000) unpack: 4 wallclock secs ( 2.43 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.43 CPU) @ 411522.63/s n=1000000) unpack_setup: 1 wallclock secs ( 0.44 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.44 CPU) @ 2272727.27/s (n=1000000)
I must say I was surprised. I included the times for "setup"-that is, everything but the operation itself, on the idea that perhaps the setup might have taken longer for the one method than another. Thoughts....?
Update (26-Sept-2006): Updated formatting of results.
Update (26-Sept-2006): Fixed typo. (Thanks to BrowserUk for pointing it out.)
Update (26-Sept-2006): Fixed 2nd typo. (Thanks to chargrill for pointing it out.)
In reply to Re^2: Challenge: Construct an unpack string
by atcroft
in thread Challenge: Construct an unpack string
by holli
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |