James Edward Gray II wrote: >> Now it might be hard to determine which of these two is faster.
>And the results, from my G5: > >Benchmark: timing 3000000 iterations of all_ones, foreach, hash_slice, >map_hash, map_ones, range... > all_ones: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.76 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.76 CPU) @ >1704545.45/s (n=3000000) > foreach: 3 wallclock secs ( 2.39 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.39 CPU) @ >1255230.13/s (n=3000000) >hash_slice: 1 wallclock secs ( 0.94 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.94 CPU) @ >3191489.36/s (n=3000000) > map_hash: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.43 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.43 CPU) @ >2097902.10/s (n=3000000) > map_ones: 4 wallclock secs ( 3.91 usr + 0.00 sys = 3.91 CPU) @ >767263.43/s (n=3000000) > range: 1 wallclock secs ( 2.20 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.20 CPU) @ >1363636.36/s (n=3000000) > >Looks like Rob is still the man to beat. :D > Dang. Ok, Rob's original idea is the fastest solution, but he has to use exists later. Of the solutions not using exists, I come in third (range). That's not bad for an amateur or is it? ;) - Jan -- There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
