I think there might be a little bug in salva2. I copied the code from Re^5: Random data generation to try my own solution (middle of the pack, not worth posting), but while studying the code, I noticed a potential problem. my $buf is declared just before gen_salva2.
my $buf; sub gen_salva2 { while (length $buf < $len) { $buf .= $set[rand @set] for (1..$len*100); $buf =~ s/(.)\1{$max_reps,}/$1 x $max_reps/ge; } substr($buf, -$len, $len, ''); }
So I put it inside sub gen_salva2{} and ran it again. I bencharked only for $elements = 6, $max_reps = 2, to match BrowserUK's original parameters. That and the change to gen_salva2 are the only changes. Notice how the rankings change.
elements: 6 max_reps: 2 Rate salva2 salva almut_mod3 almut_mod4 almut_mod2 + almut salva2 1077/s -- -98% -98% -98% -98% + -98% salva 54086/s 4922% -- -10% -13% -13% + -17% almut_mod3 59766/s 5450% 11% -- -4% -4% + -8% almut_mod4 61953/s 5653% 15% 4% -- -1% + -5% almut_mod2 62270/s 5682% 15% 4% 1% -- + -5% almut 65222/s 5956% 21% 9% 5% 5% + --
I thought gen_salva2 got its amazing speed boost by using an already populated $buf. After running the benchmark, I reduced the count to 100 and added a print line before creating $buf to test this theory.
my $buf; sub gen_salva2 { print "$buf\n"; while (length $buf < $len) { $buf .= $set[rand @set] for (1..$len*100); $buf =~ s/(.)\1{$max_reps,}/$1 x $max_reps/ge; } substr($buf, -$len, $len, ''); }
This printed a string 1164 chars long: 4235621656212414423622661645561656223662351124233115.... Each time through, it reduces the length by 12, which is then printed. When the string is too small, it generates a new one. The while() loop is simply not executed very often -- about 1 in 96 to 98 times on average.
--marmotIn reply to Re^6: Random data generation.
by furry_marmot
in thread Random data generation.
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |