Umm, sorry I should have been more clear. The actual timings were done on two different machines. One set of benchmarks on my box here, the other set via Dumper Prompt. When I get more time Ill run both via dumper prompt so the runs per sec numbers are comparable (i was more interested in the relative percentages, not the r/p/s)

I reran all the tests from the Dumper prompt with the updated code I just posted in reply to ysth elsewhere in this thread. 'new_u' and 'old_u' are with DB updates, 'new' and 'old' are without.

 new, new_u, old, old_u, each for at least 2 CPU seconds...
       new:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.04 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.04 CPU) @ 50
+5.62/s (n=1031)
     new_u:  8 wallclock secs ( 2.09 usr +  0.05 sys =  2.15 CPU) @ 23
+6.45/s (n=508)
       old:  3 wallclock secs ( 2.12 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.12 CPU) @ 13
+0.82/s (n=278)
     old_u:  7 wallclock secs ( 2.05 usr +  0.06 sys =  2.12 CPU) @ 10
+2.49/s (n=217)
       Rate old_u   old new_u   new
old_u 102/s    --  -22%  -57%  -80%
old   131/s   28%    --  -45%  -74%
new_u 236/s  131%   81%    --  -53%
new   506/s  393%  286%  114%    --

new, new_u, old, old_u, each for at least 2 CPU seconds...
       new:  3 wallclock secs ( 2.19 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.19 CPU) @ 50
+0.11/s (n=1094)
     new_u:  5 wallclock secs ( 1.94 usr +  0.12 sys =  2.06 CPU) @ 24
+6.30/s (n=508)
       old:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.13 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.13 CPU) @ 13
+5.50/s (n=289)
     old_u:  4 wallclock secs ( 2.10 usr +  0.03 sys =  2.13 CPU) @ 10
+6.43/s (n=227)
       Rate old_u   old new_u   new
old_u 106/s    --  -21%  -57%  -79%
old   136/s   27%    --  -45%  -73%
new_u 246/s  131%   82%    --  -51%
new   500/s  370%  269%  103%    --

 new, new_u, old, old_u, each for at least 2 CPU seconds...
       new:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.09 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.09 CPU) @ 51
+0.56/s (n=1065)
     new_u:  5 wallclock secs ( 1.89 usr +  0.13 sys =  2.02 CPU) @ 26
+0.94/s (n=528)
       old:  2 wallclock secs ( 2.14 usr +  0.00 sys =  2.14 CPU) @ 13
+9.21/s (n=298)
     old_u:  3 wallclock secs ( 2.01 usr +  0.03 sys =  2.04 CPU) @ 11
+1.33/s (n=227)
       Rate old_u   old new_u   new
old_u 111/s    --  -20%  -57%  -78%
old   139/s   25%    --  -47%  -73%
new_u 261/s  134%   87%    --  -49%
new   511/s  359%  267%   96%    --
[download]

Note that new_u() is still considerably faster than old_u(), and that new() has an even greater advantage over old().

Another point is that Benchmark.pm tries hard to ignore most of the DB/network time so you need to look at the elapsed time. For a second I was puzzled because the second number was obscured:

new_u: 8 wallclock secs (n=508)
old_u: 7 wallclock secs (n=217)
new_u: 5 wallclock secs (n=508)
old_u: 4 wallclock secs (n=227)
new_u: 5 wallclock secs (n=528)
old_u: 3 wallclock secs (n=227)
[download]

But after dividing, the wall-clock rates are (rather inaccurately):

new_u  63.5
old_u  31
new_u 101.6
old_u  56.75
new_u 105.6
old_u  75.67
[download]

Good work.

- tye        

Here is a patch to add the new vars code into Everything.pm, afaik its against a current Everything.pm

Read more... (10 kB)


---
demerphq


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Gandhi

Flux8

Read more... As straight code (8 kB)