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
| [reply] [d/l] |
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
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |