in reply to Re^2: cut vs split (suggestions)
in thread cut vs split (suggestions)

Faster than mine also: 

[ 4:40:33.95] P:\test>cut -d, -f 1-15 data\25x500000.csv >nul

[ 4:41:13.59] P:\test>

[ 4:42:48.34] P:\test>perl -lanF, -e "BEGIN{ $,=','} print @F[0..14];"
+ data\25x500000.csv >nul

[ 4:43:25.60] P:\test>

[download]

40 seconds for cut versus 37 for Perl.

That said, that time for your cut seems almost to good to be true. You are sure that cut can't somehow detect that it is writing to the null device and simply skip it--like perl sort detects a null context and skips?

It's probably just a very well optimised, time-honed Unix utility versus a bad Win32 emulation, but 0.80s for 500,000 records is remarkable enough to make me check.

I just remembered something I discovered a long time ago. The Win32 nul device is slower than writing to a file!? 

[ 4:53:24.51] P:\test>cut -d, -f 1-15 data\25x500000.csv >junk

[ 4:53:38.01] P:\test>

[download]

Actually writing the file cuts the 40 seconds to 14. Go figure.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco.
Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: cut vs split (suggestions)
by tlm (Prior) on Apr 17, 2005 at 04:30 UTC

    That said, that time for your cut seems almost to good to be true. You are sure that cut can't somehow detect that it is writing to the null device and simply skip it--like perl sort detects a null context and skips?

    As it happens, in the very first run of cut I tried, I sent the output to a file; and yes, I was pleasantly surprised to see how fast this cut was. But, what utility could there be for the optimization you describe? If there is one, I sure can't think of it. And why should a no-op take 0.9s?

    Anyway, FWIW: 

    % time cut -d, -f"1-15" numbers.csv > out.csv
0.80s user 0.11s system 100% cpu 0.906 total
% wc out.csv
  500000   500000 29174488 out.csv
% head -1 out.csv
169,970,983,721,411,426,262,255,484,174,389,651,175,975,763
% tail -1 out.csv
936,347,232,520,436,359,208,737,788,226,731,497,755,746,812

    [download]

    the lowliest monk

[reply]
[d/l]
      But, what utility could there be for the optimization you describe?

      None, but then there is no point in sorting in a void context either, but I've been bitten enough times by that when benchmarking (usually publically!), that extreme differences make me suspicious. I was just suprised by the magniitude of the difference you were showing.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco.
      Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
[reply]
[d/l]
Re^4: cut vs split (suggestions)
by sk (Curate) on Apr 17, 2005 at 04:54 UTC
    I was curious about the auto-detect in cut. So I tested it in on my machine again

    [sk]% time cut -d, -f"1-15" numbers.csv > junk
5.630u 0.260s 0:06.12 96.2%     
[sk]% time cut -d, -f"1-15" numbers.csv > /dev/null
5.620u 0.030s 0:05.65 100.0%

    [download]
    I guess Pustular must be on a really fast machine :) -SK
[reply]
[d/l]

      Don't I wish! I just have a faster cut; my numbers for the Perl scripts are comparable to yours.

      the lowliest monk

[reply]
        I just have a faster cut; my numbers for the Perl scripts are comparable to yours.
        That's right...duh :)

        Edit by tye: Remove PRE tags

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom