in reply to Re: Implement uclast with a regex
in thread Implement uclast with a regex

should be quickier than the double reverse

Why? Have you benchmarked that?

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Implement uclast with a regex
by dada (Chaplain) on Mar 10, 2004 at 10:01 UTC
    no I didn't, it was just a guess :-) and in fact, it seems the double reverse solution is faster for small strings, while the substr solution wins in the long run. anyway, here you get full benchmark:
    use strict; use List::Util qw(shuffle); use Benchmark qw(:all); my $string = "ACta"; print "*** ", length($string), " characters\n"; cmpthese(1_000_000, { uclast_substr => sub { uclast_substr($string) }, uclast_2reverse => sub { uclast_2reverse($string) }, }); $string = join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); print "*** ", length($string), " characters\n"; cmpthese(1_000_000, { uclast_substr => sub { uclast_substr($string) }, uclast_2reverse => sub { uclast_2reverse($string) }, }); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); print "*** ", length($string), " characters\n"; cmpthese(1_000_000, { uclast_substr => sub { uclast_substr($string) }, uclast_2reverse => sub { uclast_2reverse($string) }, }); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); $string .= join ("", shuffle( 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' )); print "*** ", length($string), " characters\n"; cmpthese(1_000_000, { uclast_substr => sub { uclast_substr($string) }, uclast_2reverse => sub { uclast_2reverse($string) }, }); sub uclast_substr { my($string) = @_; $string = lc(substr($string, 0, length($string)-1)) . uc(substr($string, -1, 1)); return $string; } sub uclast_2reverse { my($string) = @_; $string = reverse ucfirst lc reverse $string; return $string; }
    and here the result:
    *** 4 characters
                        Rate   uclast_substr uclast_2reverse
    uclast_substr   566572/s              --            -15%
    uclast_2reverse 666223/s             18%              --
    *** 52 characters
                        Rate   uclast_substr uclast_2reverse
    uclast_substr   470588/s              --             -6%
    uclast_2reverse 500000/s              6%              --
    *** 208 characters
                        Rate uclast_2reverse   uclast_substr
    uclast_2reverse 249938/s              --             -9%
    uclast_substr   273523/s              9%              --
    *** 676 characters
                        Rate uclast_2reverse   uclast_substr
    uclast_2reverse 102239/s              --            -19%
    uclast_substr   126231/s             23%              --
    
    cheers,
    Aldo

    King of Laziness, Wizard of Impatience, Lord of Hubris

Re: Re: Re: Implement uclast with a regex
by UnderMine (Friar) on Mar 10, 2004 at 10:39 UTC
    use Benchmark; my $tests = [qw(these are a few test to try andaverylongteststring acoupleoftimesover xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz +zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)]; timethese (100000, { NoOpLoop => sub { for my $test (@$tests) { # NO Op Loop } }, regex1 => sub { for my $test (@$tests) { $test=~s/^(.*)(.)$/\L$1\U$2/; } }, substr => sub { for my $test (@$tests) { $test= lc(substr($test, 0, length($test)-1)) . uc(substr($test, -1, 1)); } }, reverse=> sub { for my $test (@$tests) { $test=reverse ucfirst lc reverse $test; } } });
    and the winner is :-
    Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of NoOpLoop, regex1, reverse, subs +tr... NoOpLoop: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.86 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.86 CPU) @ 53763.44/s (n=100000) regex1: 82 wallclock secs (30.31 usr + 0.01 sys = 30.32 CPU) @ 3298.15/s (n=100000) reverse: 8 wallclock secs ( 7.40 usr + 0.00 sys = 7.40 CPU) @ 13513.51/s (n=100000) substr: 8 wallclock secs ( 8.51 usr + 0.01 sys = 8.52 CPU) @ 11737.09/s (n=100000)
    Interesting: double reverse seamed the best but as always test on real data!!

    Hope it helps
    UnderMine