[erlang-questions] surprise! binary vs list in file parse.

[litao cheng]

yes, I retry the test like you say.
the result is same.
thank you!

2008/6/26 Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED>:

> Hi
>
> 2008/6/26 litao cheng <litaocheng@REDACTED>:
>
> I had read joel's article:Parsing text and binary files with Erlang. In the
>> article, the author show how to parse a comma-delimited text file.
>> I write the code for practice, the module source is act.erl.  By the way,
>> I see in the bottom of joel' article, a buddy give a comment, he says, he
>> use binary to instead of some list, It seems so efficient, so I write the
>> second code, it's act_2.erl.
>>
>> Finally,  I want to test how much the act_2 faster than act. So suprise,
>> In my Compute, The result is :
>> 96> timer_avg:tc(act, parse, ["test.txt"], 100).
>> Max: 15991
>> Min: 1
>> Avg: 2339.05
>>
>> 100> timer_avg:tc(act_2, parse, ["test.txt"], 100).
>> Max: 15997
>> Min: 1
>> Avg: 4839.03
>>
>> the timer_avg is a moudule  evaluates apply(Module, Function, Arguments)N times and measures the elapsed real time, about Max, Min, Avg. (use
>> timer:tc/3).
>>
>> who will give me some explain?
>>
>
> You might want to retry the tests, starting them instead with
> spawn(timer_avg, tc, [act, parse, ["test.txt"], 100]).
> spawn(timer_avg, tc, [act_2, parse, ["test.txt"], 100]).
>
> This way you don't get any random garbage collections to interfere.
>
> regards,
> Vlad
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080626/7d805316/attachment.htm>