1. Re: type string
- Posted by Greg Phillips <i.shoot at REDNECKS.COM>
Mar 12, 1999
-
Last edited Mar 13, 1999
Boehme, Gabriel wrote:
> Daniel, I ran string6() and your version of string() above thru the
> strbench.ex program you posted earlier, and string6() wins every time!
>
> It's because the "not sequence(s)" and "integer(c)" tests are crucial to the
> edge that string6() has. Every time I changed one or the other to what you
> suggested, the speed dropped. [Using "c<1" instead of "c<0" made no
> significant difference.]
>
> Running on a PII 200mHz in DOS under WinNT:
> -------------------------------------------
> ex strbench 100000 6
>
> string6z() - 0.001285 "c<0" replaced with "c<1"
> string6() - 0.001288
> string6s() - 0.001304 "not sequence(s)" replaced with "atom(s)"
> string6i() - 0.001324 "integer(c)" replaced with "atom(c)"
> string() - 0.001344
>
> The far-right digit varied a little, but the other digits remained the same
> every time.
>
> Now, I know that Euphoria allows fp values for its string chars, but is it
> *really* necessary for the string() type to allow them, too? It's the
> biggest speed-killer of the bunch (string6i above).
>
odd....I don't know what it is, but get wierd results. I ran the same thing,
didn't change anything, except for adding new types...under pure DOS, on a
Pentium 120, 48mb RAM, not a monster of a system, my results
ex strbench 100000 6
string6z() - 0.000000
string6() - 0.000000
string6s() - 0.000001
string6i() - 0.000001
string() - 0.000002
I know my system isn't *that* fast...
Greg
