in reply to autobox performance:a real-world comparison

For me, using MinGW-built perl-5.10.1 (32 bit):
Without autobox::Core took 5.188 seconds
With autobox::Core took 203.469 seconds

Using MinGW-built perl-5.10.1 (64 bit):
Without autobox::Core took 6.203 seconds
With autobox::Core took 486.675 seconds

Using ActivePerl-5.10.1 (64-bit) build 1007:
Without autobox::Core took 6.563 seconds
With autobox::Core took 489.123 seconds

As you can see, it's a fairly slow box - which may be at least partly due to some dumb configuring of Vista64. Of course the main thing we're looking at is the relative speeds, and autobox::Core is just plain woeful on Windows - roughly twice as woeful on 64-bit perls.

Cheers,
Rob
  • Comment on Re: autobox performance:a real-world comparison

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: autobox performance:a real-world comparison
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 07, 2010 at 04:26 UTC

    Thankyou. At least I now know that it isn't something peculiar to just my machine.

    The fact that this is affecting all three of your builds 32&64 bit; MSC & MinGW (with presumably different C-runtimes) makes me think that this isn't something completely outside of autobox--like a slow memory allocator--but rather some particular assumption within autobox that is true under Linux and not under Win.

    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.
[reply]

In Section Meditations