in reply to Re: perl performance vs egrep
in thread perl performance vs egrep

If you're IO bound, you might be better off storing a few dozen lines in a scalar and printing just once every few-dozen iterations instead of on every iteration.

Im confused by this comment. The only reason I can see such a strategy making a difference is that it will reduce the number of print calls. I'd be surprised if user caching is more effective than the caching that perl itself does.

---
demerphq

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: perl performance vs egrep
by ysth (Canon) on Jan 25, 2005 at 09:32 UTC
    print is just plain expensive. Here's a really quickly hacked together benchmark: $ perl -we'open my $zap, ">", "/dev/null"; use Benchmark "cmpthese"; cmpthese -10, { every => sub { for (1..100) { print $zap $_ } }, tens => sub { my $x; for (1..100) { $x .= $_; print $zap substr($x,0,1000,"") unless $x % 10 } } }'
[reply]
[d/l]

      This must be OS dependent or something... (hard to say as you didnt post the output). On my system print with no cache is much faster: 

      
open my $zap, ">", "NULL:";
use Benchmark "cmpthese";
cmpthese -10, {
   every => sub { for (1..100) { print $zap $_ } },
   tens  => sub { my $x;
                  for (1..100) {
                    $x .= $_;
                    unless ($x % 10) {
                      print $zap $x;
                      $x="";
                    }
                  }
                  print $zap $x if length $x;
                },
}

__END__
# modfied code as posted above (5.6.1 on W2k)
         Rate  tens every
tens   1159/s    --  -90%
every 11285/s  874%    --

# original code (5.6.1 on W2k)
         Rate  tens every
tens   1124/s    --  -90%
every 11219/s  899%    --

#  5.8.4 (XP)
         Rate  tens every
tens   8305/s    --  -73%
every 30329/s  265%    --

# 5.8.6 No Implicit Sys (XP)
         Rate  tens every
tens   9655/s    --  -68%
every 29755/s  208%    --

      [download]

      At least on Win32 it would seem just using print is much faster.... I guess this could be an example of what Steve Hay was talking about with Win32's realloc being crap and that it makes concatenation unecessarily slow. Update: No, that doesnt make sense, I just tried it with two different perl versions on two different win32 boxes and "every" won every one of them....

      Ignore this for now, its got a bug: "NUL" not "NULL:",as ysth pointed out. Ill redo it when i have access to all those perl versions again

      ---
      demerphq

[reply]
[d/l]
        print is indeed fast when the open fails :) Trying with: 
        use File::Spec;
open my $zap, ">", File::Spec->devnull or die "open failed: $!";
use Benchmark "cmpthese";
cmpthese -10, {
   every => sub { for (1..100) { print $zap $_ } },
   tens  => sub { my $x;
                  for (1..100) {
                    $x .= $_;
                    unless ($x % 10) {
                      print $zap $x;
                      $x="";
                    }
                  }
                  print $zap $x if length $x;
                },
}

        [download]
        on first ActivePerl build 811, then cygwin perl 5.8.6 (the latter being a debugging build): 
        $ aperl nullout.pl
        Rate every  tens
every 3792/s    --  -34%
tens  5728/s   51%    --

$ perl nullout.pl
        Rate every  tens
every 1479/s    --  -54%
tens  3226/s  118%    --

        [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom