It feels to me like array.concat seems slower than the equivalent (I
think) variation using array.push:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]; b=[]; puts Benchmark.measure{ (1…100000).each{ b.push(*a)}}
0.090000 0.000000 0.090000 ( 0.090436)
a = [1,2,3,4,5]; b=[]; puts Benchmark.measure{ (1…100000).each{ b.concat(a)}}
0.290000 0.000000 0.290000 ( 0.296501)
(using ruby 1.8.4)
This surprised me somewhat, because earlier
(http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/7521)
it was suggested that concat is a fast way of appending to arrays.
Is there something I’m missing, or does it seem I should be
using push(*a) in places where I had been using concat(a)?
Hmm… perhaps answering my own question …
array.push(*a) segfaults more than concat does…
a = [1,2,3,4,5]; puts Benchmark.measure{ (1…20).each{ a.concat(a)}}
0.100000 0.040000 0.140000 ( 0.143773)
=> nil
a = [1,2,3,4,5]; puts Benchmark.measure{ (1…20).each{ a.push(*a)}}
Segmentation fault
On 4/24/06, [email protected] <
[email protected]> wrote:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]; b=[]; puts Benchmark.measure{ (1…100000).each{
Is there something I’m missing, or does it seem I should be
using push(*a) in places where I had been using concat(a)?
Very interesting, as a matter concat is faster - as shown below- under
normal circumstances
obviously push is faster for very very long receivers.
Can somebody explain why, I could study the code, but I am not sure I
would
find it even if I had the time.
Cheers
cat array.rb; ruby array.rb
require ‘benchmark’
a = [1,2,3,4,5]; puts Benchmark.measure{ (1…1000000).each{
b=[];b.push(*a)}}
a = [1,2,3,4,5]; puts Benchmark.measure{ (1…1000000).each{ b=[];
b.concat
(a)}}
2.320000 0.000000 2.320000 ( 2.938714)
1.980000 0.000000 1.980000 ( 2.301109)
Robert
–
Deux choses sont infinies : l’univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l’univers, je n’en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.