On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Angerstein wrote: > fake! you dont need to sort the array to times... because u know where the > lowest hand the higest is.
Yes I do know that, you don't have to sort the array two times. > Less of the half of 11 wallclocks would be what i expect. I think you should read through the mail properly before crying fake. The 11 seconds is for the subroutine using the foreach loop. > > > Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of using_for, using_sort... > > using_for: 11 wallclock secs (11.60 usr + 0.04 sys = 11.64 CPU) @ > > 85910.65/s (n=1000000) > > using_sort: 8 wallclock secs ( 7.63 usr + 0.06 sys = 7.69 CPU) @ > > 130039.01/s (n=1000000) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
