Re: Parallel search in Perl and other languages
- From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:02:58 +0200
On 2008-07-28 16:43, smallpond <smallpond@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter J. Holzer wrote:[WideFinder]
Other people contributed equivalent programs in other languages, so
he now has a nice collection of one or two dozen implementations of
the same task in different languages. Last time I looked, the Perl
implementation was the fastest.
Hard to imagine perl winning for execution speed on any task.
Give the programmer a deadline (like "I need that by tomorrow") and perl
is frequently faster than some nominally faster programming language,
because the perl programmer needs to spend less time with "housekeeping"
and can spend more time finding a better algorithm.
In the case of searching and matching (what WideFinder does), the main
factor for performance is the speed of the RegEx engine (and perl's is
apparently quite fast for many cases).
The benchmarks game site[...]
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/index.php[...]
These are a lot of fun but not very relevant for the real world. Almost
all of the benchmarks focus on specific operations, not on doing a task.
has a couple of multi-thread tests where perl does much worse than
most other languages.
If you think you need to use threads in Perl, think again :-).
Those results aren't totally optimized. perl results are not
using pp,
How would pp make perl faster? It's not a compiler, just a packager.
hp
.
- References:
- Parallel search in Perl and other languages
- From: Peter J. Holzer
- Re: Parallel search in Perl and other languages
- From: smallpond
- Parallel search in Perl and other languages
- Prev by Date: Re: FAQ 4.2 Why is int() broken?
- Next by Date: Re: Extracting bits out of huge numbers
- Previous by thread: Re: Parallel search in Perl and other languages
- Next by thread: FAQ 3.21 How can I compile my Perl program into byte code or C?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
