demerphq wrote:
> 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.
>
> YvesThere's also a thread on PM: http://perlmonks.com/?node_id=658723
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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]
