On Friday 28 May 2004 01:36 pm, Stas Bekman wrote: > >>http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/api/APR/Date.html
> > Are these parsers any faster than the perl module ones? (Ie. any reason > > for using these over Date::Time or similar?) > > They are written in C, so if Date::Time is not, APR::Date is probably > faster. But don't take my word for granted as I didn't benchmark -- run > Benchmark.pm and post your findings to the list for the rest to know. > Thanks! I finally got chance to do this, here's the results from parsing 'Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT', with 10000 iterations using Benchmark::timethis. There's actually quite a number of different date parsing modules on cpan, each of which does something slightly different. Date::Parse::str2time 3 wallclock secs ( 3.58 usr + 0.01 sys = 3.59 CPU) @ 2785.52/s Time::ParseDate::parsedate 4 wallclock secs ( 3.35 usr + 0.01 sys = 3.36 CPU) @ 2976.19/s Date::Manip::ParseDate 63 wallclock secs (63.12 usr 0.02 sys + 0.01 cusr 0.01 csys = 63.16 CPU) @ 158.38/s APR::Date::parse_rfc: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.04 CPU) @ 250000.00/s APR::Date::parse_http: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.03 CPU) @ 333333.33/s So, assuming the date you have is either HTTP-compliant or RFC822-compliant, then the APR::Date functions are orders of magnitude faster. Hopefully this is of use to someone. -- There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self. - Aldous Huxley -- Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html