Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length

[Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 07:14:53PM +0200, Abigail wrote:
> You know, without giving us the data you used to perform these tests, 
> the numbers are meaningless.
> 
> But given that you only have one set of numbers, suggesting you only 
> used one set of strings, even with the data, the numbers would be 
> meaningless.

Actually I ran it a bunch of times with big and small strings with
different amounts of commonality, but it all came out pretty much the
same.  You're right, of course, I didn't do a proper, complete
benchmark report.  But as this is Fun With Perl and not Hardcore
Performance Benchmarking I didn't think it necessary to get into too
much depth.

The strings I used in that particular run were:
foofedskjooidfoooofmbarbarijsfijr and fdsfloo9harrbarfoooood2308ooble


-- 

Michael G. Schwern   <schwern@pobox.com>    http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance     <perl-qa@perl.org>	     Kwalitee Is Job One
<purl> Hey Schwern! honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk,
honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk,
honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk,
honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk,
honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk!  

==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe