On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 01:02:31PM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> OK, thanks for the info. I'm not an internals guy, but I guess I
> should have written the benchmark. It just _seemed_ they should be
> slower, because there is more work to do the hashing. The actual
> lookup, I agree, should be the same.
Similar mistaken logic leads to "globals are faster than lexicals".
> Now while it is _totally_ true from your numbers that the lookup
> (read reference) costs are the same, it would seem that the
> variability in write references could still make this pay off. The
> set_const is about 40% slower for hash, and set_var is about 166%
> slower.
Accessor overhead swamps all.
> N.B. I wonder if the hash accessor is faster because the array
> accessor is referencing past the end of the array? (not apples to
> apples here, you use index 0 everywhere else, and index 1 in the
> accessor.)
Its just benchmarking flutter. I reran it with 1 everywhere else and
the same results. Besides, because $aobj is global, the first call
would extend the array and the following 899_999 wouldn't worrry about
it.
> > I know, lets call it a pseudo-hash!
> >
> > Been there, done that, worn the scars proudly.
>
> Is _that_ what a pseudo-hash is? Then it sounds like a good idea.
> But maybe there are some differences between today's pseudo-hash and
> my proposal, even though they might be similar. I think mine is
> pretty general, and the discussion on this list made it sound like
> pseudo-hash has some other restrictions?
Read RFC 241 for a brief overview of pseudo-hash problems.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse
Sometimes these hairstyles are exaggerated beyond the laws of physics
- Unknown narrator speaking about Anime
