in reply to Re^4: Thread::Queue vs Thread::Queue::Any
in thread Thread::Queue vs Thread::Queue::Any

Are you telling me that I'm a layer?

No! I'm saying that you are mistaken. That your benchmark is flawed and as a consequence you are comparing apples and oranges; and on that basis, you are adding 2+2 and getting 3 1.5

It's quite simple. You have a cost for Thread::Queue (call it A). You have an additional cost for Thread::Queue::Any (namely Storable), call that B.

A can never be greater than A+B.

Unless B is negative; in which case you have discovered the programming equivalent of perpectual motion!

Something is afoot. But you're seeing it as a hand or an elbow or some such, because your results do not make sense. I cannot reproduce your results; nor understand how you could be getting them.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm suggesting to you that when the results seem too good (or too bad) to be true; they usually are. And cautioning you to look very closely at what your code is actually doing.


Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
RIP PCW
  • Comment on Re^5: Thread::Queue vs Thread::Queue::Any

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.