C vs Perl - efficiency - untrue for me

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #178,610

10/9/04 12:41:13 PM

C vs Perl - efficiency - untrue for me

I'm almost always bottlenecked on IO. Well, maybe not any more with the new arrays. But for my type of data munging for data warehouse work, Perl has been a fast as C when I did my simple tests.

Post #178,613

10/9/04 1:11:47 PM

Point - but you may want to rebenchmark

I know that historically on Linux, Perl's I/O performance was not up to snuff. I don't remember the exact cause, but the situation was bad enough that with a default compile it could be faster to read data and split it into lines inside of Perl rather than have Perl do that splitting!

I believe that this has since been fixed.

Another vague memory tells me that enabling Unicode processing can add significant overhead to Perl's I/O.

And, of course, the default Perl 5.8 that shipped with Red Hat 9 was compiled with threads and significantly underperformed any version of Perl that you'd be likely to compile for yourself. People benchmarking that gave rise to a myth that Perl 5.8 was a lot slower than 5.6. Nope. If you compile with the same options, the speeds are basically equivalent. But the version of 5.8 shipped by Red Hat was slower than their version of 5.6. Here are [link|http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/clikingspimp/1068515972.2699.131.camel@localhost.localdomain|some benchmarks] that a friend of mine did.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Perl frustrations - (tuberculosis) - (45) - Oct. 7, 2004, 03:55:53 PM EDT

Simple solution - (ben_tilly) - (10) - Oct. 7, 2004, 05:31:13 PM EDT

Bleh. - (admin) - (3) - Oct. 7, 2004, 04:42:49 PM EDT

That's because you approached it wrong - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Oct. 7, 2004, 05:22:57 PM EDT

I'm gradually warming up to it - (deSitter) - Oct. 7, 2004, 09:08:18 PM EDT

That should be in the man page. - (static) - Oct. 8, 2004, 02:17:42 AM EDT

Is this a sort of typecasting? - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Oct. 7, 2004, 05:36:33 PM EDT

It's a reference -NT - (Simon_Jester) - Oct. 7, 2004, 06:00:50 PM EDT

Sort of - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 7, 2004, 06:10:14 PM EDT

Interesting.... - (Simon_Jester) - (2) - Oct. 7, 2004, 05:58:41 PM EDT

The solution would have its own problems - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 7, 2004, 06:27:50 PM EDT

<bow> thank you. -NT - (Simon_Jester) - Oct. 7, 2004, 11:14:47 PM EDT

THank you for stepping on this rake - (Arkadiy) - (33) - Oct. 7, 2004, 05:20:48 PM EDT

He was overcomplicating it - (ben_tilly) - (32) - Oct. 7, 2004, 05:30:04 PM EDT

Well, maybe - (tuberculosis) - (17) - Oct. 7, 2004, 05:43:24 PM EDT

Agreed - (ben_tilly) - (16) - Oct. 7, 2004, 06:12:17 PM EDT

Agree its a mistake - (tuberculosis) - (15) - Oct. 7, 2004, 06:36:09 PM EDT

Same here. - (admin) - Oct. 7, 2004, 06:45:32 PM EDT

Right - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 7, 2004, 06:56:48 PM EDT

Shame about the inertia. Python's design is "least surprise" - (FuManChu) - (12) - Oct. 7, 2004, 10:02:43 PM EDT

When I started with Perl... - (ben_tilly) - (11) - Oct. 7, 2004, 10:53:12 PM EDT

On Perl 6 - (pwhysall) - (3) - Oct. 8, 2004, 01:53:55 AM EDT

Re: On Perl 6 - (Yendor) - Oct. 8, 2004, 08:37:56 AM EDT

I had a nice response to this typed up - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 8, 2004, 12:54:37 PM EDT

Many thanks for that - (pwhysall) - Oct. 9, 2004, 02:53:04 AM EDT

We're having a little brown bag on Ruby - (tuberculosis) - (4) - Oct. 8, 2004, 12:46:50 PM EDT

Re: We're having a little brown bag on Ruby - (JimWeirich) - (3) - Oct. 11, 2004, 06:55:34 AM EDT

Shhh! Anonymous Todd works at some other... - (CRConrad) - Oct. 11, 2004, 07:36:30 AM EDT

I might have been there - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Oct. 11, 2004, 12:55:46 PM EDT

Re: I might have been there - (JimWeirich) - Oct. 11, 2004, 01:14:57 PM EDT

Re: strict -- have you seen pychecker? - (FuManChu) - (1) - Oct. 8, 2004, 01:02:20 PM EDT

No I hadn't, thanks - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 8, 2004, 01:08:02 PM EDT

BTW Arkadiy, I'm still waiting for a response - (ben_tilly) - (13) - Oct. 8, 2004, 12:57:52 PM EDT

I am not saying it's shorter in C... - (Arkadiy) - (10) - Oct. 8, 2004, 03:22:09 PM EDT

And now for my real comment - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Oct. 8, 2004, 03:34:09 PM EDT

May be it's a hindsight thing - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Oct. 8, 2004, 03:47:36 PM EDT

It could be many things - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 8, 2004, 06:13:45 PM EDT

I don't know - multimap - (Simon_Jester) - (6) - Oct. 9, 2004, 12:22:32 AM EDT

Re: I don't know - multimap - (Arkadiy) - (5) - Oct. 9, 2004, 12:17:47 PM EDT

Why the worry about efficiency? - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Oct. 9, 2004, 12:25:52 PM EDT

I worry about efficiency - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Oct. 9, 2004, 12:30:44 PM EDT

Ah - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 9, 2004, 12:59:07 PM EDT

C vs Perl - efficiency - untrue for me - (broomberg) - (1) - Oct. 9, 2004, 12:41:13 PM EDT

Point - but you may want to rebenchmark - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 9, 2004, 01:11:47 PM EDT

Here's a smalltalk version - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Oct. 8, 2004, 06:16:21 PM EDT

Yes, think of a reference as a pointer - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 8, 2004, 06:43:04 PM EDT

Two words: Detox. Gel.
113 ms