On 23/12/2007, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/12/2007, Oleg Pronin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Damn.
> >
> > The simpliest test:
> >
> > use Benchmark qw/timethis/;
> >
> > timethis(-1, sub {test(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)});
> > timethis(-1, sub {my @b = ('what', 'the', 'fk', 'is', 'goin', 'on', '?')});
> >
> > sub test {
> > my @a = @_;
> > }
> >
> > And the not so simple results:
> >
> > 5.8.8:
> > timethis for 1: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.10 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.10 CPU) @
> > 499746.50/s (n=550502)
> > timethis for 1: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.05 usr + -0.01 sys = 1.05 CPU) @
> > 365810.63/s (n=382958)
> >
> > 5.10.0:
> > timethis for 1: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.04 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.04 CPU) @
> > 385313.68/s (n=400365)
> > timethis for 1: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.03 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.03 CPU) @
> > 305039.52/s (n=314572)
> >
> > Looks like some perfomance bug in list assignment especially for the '@_'
> > special array.
> >
> > Damn it's just a function call (not method) and shifting the params. And it
> > is so extremely slow.
> >
> > But this doesn't explain 2 times perfomance penalty in 'lite version' of
> > set_inherited. There must be something else.
>
> Please bring this up with the core perl development team, dont just
> work on it on this list. Yes cross posting is annoying, but youll get
> much further much quicker with this problem by including the p5p team,
> if anybody complains about cross posting just blame me.
Ive forwarded one mail from this thread to the p5p list.
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
