Perhaps your machine is more deterministic than mine, but successive
runs of that benchmark (and using #bmbm to be safer about the
measurement) sometimes show ‘a’ faster than “a”, sometimes slower.
Even with benchmarking, I wouldn’t trust that answers that are within a
few percent of each other. And I certainly wouldn’t rush off to refactor
code because of it.
Even with benchmarking, I wouldn’t trust that answers that are within a
few percent of each other. And I certainly wouldn’t rush off to refactor
code because of it.
Increase n from 5000 to 500000 or 5000000.
To understand the difference, just think about how many strings are
being
created with each.
‘a’ creates a new string, as does ‘b’.
The + operation creates a new string, as well.
So, there’s a lot of new string creation happening with either of the +
examples.
Change the +'s to << and you will see a difference.
Perhaps your machine is more deterministic than mine, but successive
runs of that benchmark (and using #bmbm to be safer about the
measurement) sometimes show ‘a’ faster than “a”, sometimes slower.
The thing is they are rigourosly equivalents. As soon as the program
is parsed, they are represented exactly as the same objects, a String.
So they are the same, that’s why you get around the same processing
times.
Moreover, it is normal that interpolation is faster, because it
involves only evaluation of x as a String and string copy, whereas
addition involves two method calls (+ and +), which are rather expensive
(at least more than a string copy for such small strings).
This report shows the user CPU time, system CPU time, the sum of the
user and system CPU times, and the elapsed real time. The unit of time
is seconds.
i.e. time spent in user mode, kernel mode, user+kernel (for these only
time spent by this particular program is counted) and elapsed real
(“wallclock” time)
Excellent, thanks. I started to benchmark my quiz submission’s file
reading and uh, ram usage on the ruby process skyrocketed to 200MB. Does
benchmark not play well with blocks of code?
So I tried to benchmark my code, and it works for very small numbers of
tests.
2 repetitions:
user system total real
0.871000 0.010000 0.881000 ( 0.902000)
5 repetitions:
user system total real
2.323000 0.050000 2.373000 ( 3.024000)
15 repetitions however gives the same problem - 5 minutes after I
started
the program I killed it.
Can someone help me understand if this is a problem with benchmark or
with
my code?
Excellent, thanks. I started to benchmark my quiz submission’s file
reading and uh, ram usage on the ruby process skyrocketed to 200MB.
Does
benchmark not play well with blocks of code?
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.