Re^5: better (faster) way of writing regexp

I know you have a very fast 64 bit machine

Dream on! My 32-bit machine doesn't even have a virtual second core from hyperthreading.

I'm not sure what my work machine is, but it's also 32-bit.

My earlier run was on my work machine. This is on my work machine too:

This is Perl 5.010000
            Rate  range repeat  isook unpack substr
range   416206/s     --    -6%    -8%   -45%   -67%
repeat  443742/s     7%     --    -1%   -41%   -65%
isook   450082/s     8%     1%     --   -41%   -64%
unpack  756739/s    82%    71%    68%     --   -40%
substr 1257912/s   202%   183%   179%    66%     --

This is Perl 5.010000
            Rate  range repeat  isook unpack substr
range   415726/s     --    -5%    -8%   -47%   -67%
repeat  436462/s     5%     --    -4%   -44%   -65%
isook   454041/s     9%     4%     --   -42%   -64%
unpack  779486/s    88%    79%    72%     --   -38%
substr 1262559/s   204%   189%   178%    62%     --
[download]

(Threaded 32-bit build on linux)

Interesting.

Comment on Re^5: better (faster) way of writing regexp Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: better (faster) way of writing regexp by Marshall (Canon) on Dec 03, 2009 at 22:28 UTC
Interesting... The ratio's aren't the same as on my machine, but it appears that substr() is pretty quick on both of our machines. I don't know a Linux utility for this, but in the Windows world, CPU-Z http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php shows a lot of info about processors... It is hard for me to imagine that you don't have at least a multi-threaded processor given the raw speed of your machine for a single thread. If I run two "number cruncher" apps at once, the performance is not 2x, but rather like 1.4x. I have old memory technology and my machine becomes memory bound. To Windows XP Pro, my machine looks pretty much like 2 CPU's except that 1+1 != 2, only about 1.4! And of course when I do that, my computer turns into a "space heater"!. When the winter gets colder, I run some BOINC project like seti@home, etc. on the theory that I might as well be doing something at least marginally useful while I am generating heat! Anyway this is what I have:(in the scheme of things, a Prescott is a wimp) Processor 1 (ID = 0) Number of cores 1 (max 1) Number of threads 2 (max 2) Name Intel Pentium 4 Codename Prescott Specification Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz Package Socket 478 mPGA (platform ID = 2h) CPUID F.4.1 Extended CPUID F.4 Core Stepping E0 Technology 90 nm Core Speed 3015.1 MHz (15.0 x 201.0 MHz) Rated Bus speed 804.0 MHz Stock frequency 3000 MHz Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3 L1 Data cache 16 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line si +ze Trace cache 12 Kuops, 8-way set associative L2 cache 1024 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size FID/VID Control no [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^7: better (faster) way of writing regexp by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 03, 2009 at 22:38 UTC
I "win"! :) My machine, not the one I ran the benchmark on: Number of cores 1 (max 1) Number of threads 1 (max 1) Name Intel Pentium 4 Codename Northwood Specification Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.66GHz Package (platform ID) Socket 478 mPGA (0x2) CPUID F.2.7 Extended CPUID F.2 Brand ID 9 Core Stepping C1 Technology 0.13 um Core Speed 2004.5 MHz Multiplier x FSB 20.0 x 100.2 MHz Rated Bus speed 400.9 MHz Stock frequency 2666 MHz Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2 L1 Data cache 8 KBytes, 4-way set associative, 64-byte line +size Trace cache 12 Kuops, 8-way set associative L2 cache 512 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte lin +e size FID/VID Control no [download] From that machine: `This is Perl 5.010001 Rate range repeat isook unpack substr range 117311/s -- -6% -7% -24% -81% repeat 124414/s 6% -- -2% -20% -80% isook 126456/s 8% 2% -- -18% -79% unpack 155069/s 32% 25% 23% -- -74% substr 607361/s 418% 388% 380% 292% --` [download] I'm scared of looking at the stats of my tv computer (aka Frankenputer). It's some kind of P3, for starters.	[reply] [d/l] [select]