Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2007
I began looking at adapting Object::InsideOut to using
Hash::Util::FieldHash. My first endeavor was to see how
fast they were. Much to my surprise, their performance is
disappointing. I compared simple get and set accessors for
inside-out classes using field hashes, refaddr and
stringified objects. (See attachments. The code is quite
simple.)
'get' operations:
Rate Refaddr FieldHash Stringify
Refaddr 151543/s -- -25% -49%
FieldHash 201418/s 33% -- -32%
Stringify 297227/s 96% 48% --
'set' operations:
Rate FieldHash Refaddr Stringify
FieldHash 79496/s -- -49% -74%
Refaddr 156784/s 97% -- -49%
Stringify 309688/s 290% 98% --
While field hashes do a bit better than refaddr in get
operations, stringification is the hands down winner! Why?
I tried to speed things up a bit by borrowing the trick from
blead 28961, and replaced HUF_id with
SV* HUF_id(SV* ref, NV cookie) {
UV id = PTR2UV(SvRV(ref));
return sv_2mortal(newSVpvn((char *)&id, sizeof(id)));
}
This only have about a 10% improvement:
'get' operations:
Rate Refaddr FieldHash Stringify
Refaddr 151543/s -- -31% -49%
FieldHash 221005/s 46% -- -25%
Stringify 294645/s 94% 33% --
'set' operations:
Rate FieldHash Refaddr Stringify
FieldHash 85843/s -- -45% -73%
Refaddr 155647/s 81% -- -50%
Stringify 312161/s 264% 101% --
And, of course, all this pales in comparison to what
Object::InsideOut already does.
'get' operations:
Rate Refaddr FieldHash Stringify OIO
Refaddr 150377/s -- -25% -50% -83%
FieldHash 199990/s 33% -- -33% -77%
Stringify 300178/s 100% 50% -- -66%
OIO 870557/s 479% 335% 190% --
'set' operations:
Rate FieldHash Refaddr Stringify OIO
FieldHash 79518/s -- -49% -75% -91%
Refaddr 154844/s 95% -- -51% -82%
Stringify 316440/s 298% 104% -- -64%
OIO 867219/s 991% 460% 174% --
While I fully appreciate the significance of the work done
by Anno, unless something drastic can be done to improve
their performance, there doesn't seem to be any reason to
bother trying to use field hashes.
Thread Next