I read your node - interesting, thanks. But I can't get results like yours. Could it be because the number of iterations in your test are too low?
Putting get_value() and get_value2() declarations at the beginning of program after the "my $self" line, I get:
Rate normal optimized direct normal 174625/s -- -27% -60% optimized 240602/s 38% -- -45% direct 435374/s 149% 81% --
Moving the subs to just above sub a() declaration, I get
Rate normal optimized direct normal 172275/s -- -28% -61% optimized 239252/s 39% -- -46% direct 444444/s 158% 86% --
I've tried a few more re-arrangements of the code layout, and I can't get the reversal that you did. All re-arrangements I've tried have 'direct' at 145-155%. Any chance you can post the code so I can duplicate the results? Logically, I would think that asking for the value of an arrayref element is going to be faster than calling a sub to do so, so the benchmarks appear to be logical to me.
In reply to Re^2: Unexpected OO accessor benchmarks
by cLive ;-)
in thread Unexpected OO accessor benchmarks
by cLive ;-)
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |