in reply to Re^3: Can this code be optimized further?
in thread Can this code be optimized further?

sub hash_style2 {
    my %values;
    my @temp = @master;
    push @{$values{substr($_,0,1)}}, substr($_,2)
        for @temp;
    print "@{$values{a}} <==> @{$values{b}}\n" if $testing;
}

sub ikegami {
    my @temp = @master;
    local $_ = "@temp";
    my @a = /\ba_(\d+)\b/g;
    my @b = /\bb_(\d+)\b/g;
    print "@a <==> @b\n" if $testing;
}

[download]
When I rerun adding this method (removing the three worst performers), here's what I get: 
               Rate Trinary New_Grep Original ikegami Hash2 Tri_Substr
+ Switch Tri_Substr2
Trinary     10273/s      --      -5%     -22%    -34%  -40%       -41%
+   -41%        -50%
New_Grep    10766/s      5%       --     -18%    -31%  -37%       -38%
+   -38%        -48%
Original    13096/s     27%      22%       --    -16%  -23%       -25%
+   -25%        -37%
ikegami     15683/s     53%      46%      20%      --   -8%       -10%
+   -10%        -24%
Hash2       17016/s     66%      58%      30%      8%    --        -2%
+    -3%        -18%
Tri_Substr  17437/s     70%      62%      33%     11%    2%         --
+    -0%        -16%
Switch      17453/s     70%      62%      33%     11%    3%         0%
+     --        -15%
Tri_Substr2 20651/s    101%      92%      58%     32%   21%        18%
+    18%          --

[download]
Changing to substr() brings the hash into respectable range.

Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Can this code be optimized further?
by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Feb 10, 2005 at 18:52 UTC
    Yes, it looks like using substr instead of matching with capture is the most significant improvement to be made. In fact, changing the original to do that causes it to run faster than anything except Tri_Substr2. 
    sub orig_substr {
    my (@a, @b) ;
    my @temp = @master;
    foreach my $value (@temp) {
    push @a, substr($value, 2) if (substr($value,0,2) eq 'a_') ;
    push @b, substr($value, 2) if (substr($value,0,2) eq 'b_') ;
    }
    print "@a <==> @b\n" if $testing;
}

    [download]
    Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom