I just found code that prepends with substr( $str, 0, 0, $prepend )
my $foo = " world!"
substr( $foo, 0, 0, "Hello " );
Is this any faster than
my $foo = " world!"
$foo = "Hello $foo";
If we compare the two optrees the top has
b <@> substr[t2] vK/4 ->c
- <0> ex-pushmark s ->7
7 <0> padsv[$foo:2,3] sM ->8
8 <$> const[IV 0] s ->9
9 <$> const[IV 0] s ->a
a <$> const[PV "Hello "] s ->b
While the bottom has
8 <+> multiconcat(" world!",-1,7)[$foo:2,3] sK/TARGMY,STRINGIFY ->9
- <0> ex-pushmark s ->7
7 <0> padsv[$foo:2,3] s ->8
I've created a quick benchmark for this,
use Benchmark;
use strict;
use warnings;
sub b_multiconcat {
my $foo = "world!";
$foo = "Hello $foo";
return $foo;
}
sub b_substr {
my $foo = "world!";
substr( $foo, 0, 0, "Hello " );
return $foo;
}
sub b_substr_lvalue {
my $foo = "world!";
substr( $foo, 0, 0 ) = "Hello ";
return $foo;
}
unless ( b_multiconcat() eq b_substr() && b_substr() eq b_substr_lvalue() ) {
die "they're not all the same";
}
Benchmark::cmpthese( -3, {
multiconcat => \&b_multiconcat,
substr => \&b_substr,
substr_lvalue => \&b_substr_lvalue
} );
And the results that I got are,
Rate substr substr_valute multiconcat
substr 7830854/s -- -18% -24%
substr_lvalue 9606148/s 23% -- -7%
multiconcat 10288066/s 31% 7% --
So we can see the multiconcat saves a few ops and is somewhat faster. It also looks a lot nicer to say,
$foo = "Hello $foo";
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With