in reply to datetimestamp faster/golf/prettier

Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of Reference Implementation, Rever
+se Array, Shorter Array, strftime...
Reference Implementation:  1 wallclock secs ( 0.66 usr +  0.03 sys =  
+0.69 CPU) @ 144927.54/s (n=100000)
Reverse Array:  1 wallclock secs ( 0.85 usr +  0.03 sys =  0.88 CPU) @
+ 113636.36/s (n=100000)
Shorter Array:  0 wallclock secs ( 0.63 usr +  0.04 sys =  0.67 CPU) @
+ 149253.73/s (n=100000)
  strftime:  1 wallclock secs ( 0.52 usr +  0.07 sys =  0.59 CPU) @ 16
+9491.53/s (n=100000)
                             Rate Reverse Array Reference Implementati
+on Shorter Array strftime
Reverse Array            113636/s            --                     -2
+2%          -24%     -33%
Reference Implementation 144928/s           28%                       
+--           -3%     -14%
Shorter Array            149254/s           31%                       
+3%            --     -12%
strftime                 169492/s           49%                      1
+7%           14%       --

[download]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: datetimestamp faster/golf/prettier
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jul 20, 2004 at 17:20 UTC
    I would strongly recommend timing for a given number of seconds, preferably 5 or 10. Look at the POD for Benchmark as to how to do this.

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

    I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom