>>>>> "Stas" == Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stas> Is this a question or a suggestion? but in both cases
Stas> (mod_perl and perl benchmark) the process doesn't exit, so
Stas> the allocated datastructure is reused... anyway it should be
Stas> the same. But it's not.
It was a suggestion. Examining the optrees produced by aggrlist_print
and the following two routines which should be equivalent to
concat_print and multi_print from your original posting
sub concat_print{
my $buffer;
$buffer .= "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC \"-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN\">\n";
$buffer .= "<HTML>\n";
$buffer .= " <HEAD>\n";
$buffer .= "</HTML>\n";
print $buffer;
}
sub aggrlist_print{
my @buffer = ();
push @buffer,"<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC \"-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN\">\n";
push @buffer,"<HTML>\n";
push @buffer," <HEAD>\n";
push @buffer,"</HTML>\n";
print @buffer;
}
sub multi_print{
print "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC \"-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN\">\n";
print "<HTML>\n";
print " <HEAD>\n";
print "</HTML>\n";
}
shows that aggrlist_print performs 25% OPs than concat_list and 43%
more OPs than multi_print.
Stas> handler:
Stas> concat_print | 111 5000 0 876
Stas> aggrlist_print | 113 5000 0 862
Stas> multi_print | 118 5000 0 820
Stas> buffered benchmark:
Stas> concat_print: 8 wallclock secs ( 8.23 usr + 0.05 sys = 8.28 CPU)
Stas> multi_print: 10 wallclock secs (10.70 usr + 0.01 sys = 10.71 CPU)
Stas> aggrlist_print: 30 wallclock secs (31.06 usr + 0.04 sys = 31.10 CPU)
Stas> Watch the aggrlist_print gives such a bad perl benchmark,
Stas> but very good handler benchmark...
As Matt has already commented, in the handler the method call
overheads swamps all the other activities. so concat_print &
aggrlist_print (yes, method invocation in perl really is that bad).
When you remove that overhead the extra OPs in aggrlist_print become
the dominating factor.
--
Stephen
"So if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."... "And
therefore?"... "A witch!"
