Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length

[Ronald J Kimball <rjk@linguist.thayer.dartmouth.edu>]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 10:37:56AM -0500, Steven Lembark wrote:
> 
> 
> > Benchmark: running Inline_C, Japhy, Perl, each for at least 3 CPU seconds...
> >   Inline_C:  3 wallclock secs ( 3.15 usr +  0.00 sys =  3.15 CPU) @ 347539.37/s (n=1094749)
> >      Japhy:  3 wallclock secs ( 3.21 usr +  0.01 sys =  3.22 CPU) @ 49496.58/s (n=159379)
> >       Perl:  3 wallclock secs ( 3.24 usr +  0.00 sys =  3.24 CPU) @ 50580.56/s (n=163881)
> 
> Notice the "n="
> 
>    Inline_C:   1094749     <-- looks larger?
>    Japhy:            159379
>    Perl:                163881
> 
> Or am I missing something?

By the way, the n= value is mostly irrelevant.  That's the total number of
executions, whereas what you really want to pay attention to is the number
of executions per second:

Benchmark: running Inline_C, Japhy, Perl, each for at least 3 CPU
seconds...
Inline_C: @347539.37/s
   Japhy: @49496.58/s
    Perl: @50580.56/s

Sometimes one snippet will have a larger value for n than a more efficient
solution, just because Benchmark ran the first one for a longer period of
time.  (Although that obviously didn't happen in this case.  :)

Ronald

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