The speedups are both via the REPL (global scope?) and inside a module. I did a code_native on both - results are here: https://gist.github.com/sbromberger/b5656189bcece492ffd9.
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:56:22 AM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > I would have expected the comprehension to be faster. Is this in global > scope? If so you may want to try the speed comparison again where each of > these occur in a function body and only depend on function arguments. > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Seth <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I have been using list comprehensions of the form >> bar(g, a) = [Pair(x, g) for x in a] and [foo(x) for x in a] >> >> but recently evaluated bar(g, a) = map(x->Pair(x, g),a) and >> map(x->foo(x),a)as substitutes. >> >> It seems from some limited testing that map is slightly faster than the >> list comprehension, but it's on the order of 3-4% so it may just be noise. >> Allocations and gc time are roughly equal (380M allocations, ~27000MB, ~6% >> gc). >> >> Should I prefer one approach over the other (and if so, why)? >> >> Thanks! >> > >
