Re^2: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?

Apples to oranges, but ActiveState 5.8.8 (Windows) on a significantly faster dual-core machine: 28 seconds.

Unfortunately, I no longer have any good way to run 5.6.

Comment on Re^2: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C? by trwww (Priest) on Dec 09, 2008 at 05:20 UTC
Apples to oranges... Well the script is a constant because all three perl binaries can run it unmodified. Actually, I found 5.6 runs much faster (not surprising, it is a much slimmer app). The top run is using a system provided 5.8, and the second run is a 5.6 install I have for an app I maintain: `$ time /usr/bin/perl test.pl Number: 232792560 real 0m29.042s user 0m29.039s sys 0m0.004s $ time usr/bin/perl test.pl Number: 232792560 real 0m20.968s user 0m20.961s sys 0m0.006s` [download] I ran it a few times and the figures were about the same. But I agree, not really useful. It is a bit interesting though. Regards,	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Why is this code so much slower than the same algorithm in C?
by trwww (Priest) on Dec 09, 2008 at 05:20 UTC

Apples to oranges...

Well the script is a constant because all three perl binaries can run it unmodified. Actually, I found 5.6 runs much faster (not surprising, it is a much slimmer app). The top run is using a system provided 5.8, and the second run is a 5.6 install I have for an app I maintain:

$ time /usr/bin/perl test.pl
Number: 232792560

real    0m29.042s
user    0m29.039s
sys     0m0.004s

$ time usr/bin/perl test.pl                   
Number: 232792560

real    0m20.968s
user    0m20.961s
sys     0m0.006s
[download]

I ran it a few times and the figures were about the same. But I agree, not really useful. It is a bit interesting though.

Regards,

[reply]
[d/l]