1PERLPERF(1) Perl Programmers Reference Guide PERLPERF(1)
2
3
4
6 perlperf - Perl Performance and Optimization Techniques
7
9 This is an introduction to the use of performance and optimization
10 techniques which can be used with particular reference to perl
11 programs. While many perl developers have come from other languages,
12 and can use their prior knowledge where appropriate, there are many
13 other people who might benefit from a few perl specific pointers. If
14 you want the condensed version, perhaps the best advice comes from the
15 renowned Japanese Samurai, Miyamoto Musashi, who said:
16
17 "Do Not Engage in Useless Activity"
18
19 in 1645.
20
22 Perhaps the most common mistake programmers make is to attempt to
23 optimize their code before a program actually does anything useful -
24 this is a bad idea. There's no point in having an extremely fast
25 program that doesn't work. The first job is to get a program to
26 correctly do something useful, (not to mention ensuring the test suite
27 is fully functional), and only then to consider optimizing it. Having
28 decided to optimize existing working code, there are several simple but
29 essential steps to consider which are intrinsic to any optimization
30 process.
31
32 ONE STEP SIDEWAYS
33 Firstly, you need to establish a baseline time for the existing code,
34 which timing needs to be reliable and repeatable. You'll probably want
35 to use the "Benchmark" or "Devel::NYTProf" modules, or something
36 similar, for this step, or perhaps the Unix system "time" utility,
37 whichever is appropriate. See the base of this document for a longer
38 list of benchmarking and profiling modules, and recommended further
39 reading.
40
41 ONE STEP FORWARD
42 Next, having examined the program for hot spots, (places where the code
43 seems to run slowly), change the code with the intention of making it
44 run faster. Using version control software, like "subversion", will
45 ensure no changes are irreversible. It's too easy to fiddle here and
46 fiddle there - don't change too much at any one time or you might not
47 discover which piece of code really was the slow bit.
48
49 ANOTHER STEP SIDEWAYS
50 It's not enough to say: "that will make it run faster", you have to
51 check it. Rerun the code under control of the benchmarking or
52 profiling modules, from the first step above, and check that the new
53 code executed the same task in less time. Save your work and repeat...
54
56 The critical thing when considering performance is to remember there is
57 no such thing as a "Golden Bullet", which is why there are no rules,
58 only guidelines.
59
60 It is clear that inline code is going to be faster than subroutine or
61 method calls, because there is less overhead, but this approach has the
62 disadvantage of being less maintainable and comes at the cost of
63 greater memory usage - there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you
64 are searching for an element in a list, it can be more efficient to
65 store the data in a hash structure, and then simply look to see whether
66 the key is defined, rather than to loop through the entire array using
67 grep() for instance. substr() may be (a lot) faster than grep() but
68 not as flexible, so you have another trade-off to access. Your code
69 may contain a line which takes 0.01 of a second to execute which if you
70 call it 1,000 times, quite likely in a program parsing even medium
71 sized files for instance, you already have a 10 second delay, in just
72 one single code location, and if you call that line 100,000 times, your
73 entire program will slow down to an unbearable crawl.
74
75 Using a subroutine as part of your sort is a powerful way to get
76 exactly what you want, but will usually be slower than the built-in
77 alphabetic "cmp" and numeric "<=>" sort operators. It is possible to
78 make multiple passes over your data, building indices to make the
79 upcoming sort more efficient, and to use what is known as the "OM"
80 (Orcish Maneuver) to cache the sort keys in advance. The cache lookup,
81 while a good idea, can itself be a source of slowdown by enforcing a
82 double pass over the data - once to setup the cache, and once to sort
83 the data. Using "pack()" to extract the required sort key into a
84 consistent string can be an efficient way to build a single string to
85 compare, instead of using multiple sort keys, which makes it possible
86 to use the standard, written in "c" and fast, perl "sort()" function on
87 the output, and is the basis of the "GRT" (Guttman Rossler Transform).
88 Some string combinations can slow the "GRT" down, by just being too
89 plain complex for its own good.
90
91 For applications using database backends, the standard "DBIx" namespace
92 has tries to help with keeping things nippy, not least because it tries
93 to not query the database until the latest possible moment, but always
94 read the docs which come with your choice of libraries. Among the many
95 issues facing developers dealing with databases should remain aware of
96 is to always use "SQL" placeholders and to consider pre-fetching data
97 sets when this might prove advantageous. Splitting up a large file by
98 assigning multiple processes to parsing a single file, using say "POE",
99 "threads" or "fork" can also be a useful way of optimizing your usage
100 of the available "CPU" resources, though this technique is fraught with
101 concurrency issues and demands high attention to detail.
102
103 Every case has a specific application and one or more exceptions, and
104 there is no replacement for running a few tests and finding out which
105 method works best for your particular environment, this is why writing
106 optimal code is not an exact science, and why we love using Perl so
107 much - TMTOWTDI.
108
110 Here are a few examples to demonstrate usage of Perl's benchmarking
111 tools.
112
113 Assigning and Dereferencing Variables.
114 I'm sure most of us have seen code which looks like, (or worse than),
115 this:
116
117 if ( $obj->{_ref}->{_myscore} >= $obj->{_ref}->{_yourscore} ) {
118 ...
119
120 This sort of code can be a real eyesore to read, as well as being very
121 sensitive to typos, and it's much clearer to dereference the variable
122 explicitly. We're side-stepping the issue of working with object-
123 oriented programming techniques to encapsulate variable access via
124 methods, only accessible through an object. Here we're just discussing
125 the technical implementation of choice, and whether this has an effect
126 on performance. We can see whether this dereferencing operation, has
127 any overhead by putting comparative code in a file and running a
128 "Benchmark" test.
129
130 # dereference
131
132 #!/usr/bin/perl
133
134 use strict;
135 use warnings;
136
137 use Benchmark;
138
139 my $ref = {
140 'ref' => {
141 _myscore => '100 + 1',
142 _yourscore => '102 - 1',
143 },
144 };
145
146 timethese(1000000, {
147 'direct' => sub {
148 my $x = $ref->{ref}->{_myscore} . $ref->{ref}->{_yourscore} ;
149 },
150 'dereference' => sub {
151 my $ref = $ref->{ref};
152 my $myscore = $ref->{_myscore};
153 my $yourscore = $ref->{_yourscore};
154 my $x = $myscore . $yourscore;
155 },
156 });
157
158 It's essential to run any timing measurements a sufficient number of
159 times so the numbers settle on a numerical average, otherwise each run
160 will naturally fluctuate due to variations in the environment, to
161 reduce the effect of contention for "CPU" resources and network
162 bandwidth for instance. Running the above code for one million
163 iterations, we can take a look at the report output by the "Benchmark"
164 module, to see which approach is the most effective.
165
166 $> perl dereference
167
168 Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of dereference, direct...
169 dereference: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.59 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.59 CPU) @ 628930.82/s (n=1000000)
170 direct: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.20 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.20 CPU) @ 833333.33/s (n=1000000)
171
172 The difference is clear to see and the dereferencing approach is
173 slower. While it managed to execute an average of 628,930 times a
174 second during our test, the direct approach managed to run an
175 additional 204,403 times, unfortunately. Unfortunately, because there
176 are many examples of code written using the multiple layer direct
177 variable access, and it's usually horrible. It is, however, minusculy
178 faster. The question remains whether the minute gain is actually worth
179 the eyestrain, or the loss of maintainability.
180
181 Search and replace or tr
182 If we have a string which needs to be modified, while a regex will
183 almost always be much more flexible, "tr", an oft underused tool, can
184 still be a useful. One scenario might be replace all vowels with
185 another character. The regex solution might look like this:
186
187 $str =~ s/[aeiou]/x/g
188
189 The "tr" alternative might look like this:
190
191 $str =~ tr/aeiou/xxxxx/
192
193 We can put that into a test file which we can run to check which
194 approach is the fastest, using a global $STR variable to assign to the
195 "my $str" variable so as to avoid perl trying to optimize any of the
196 work away by noticing it's assigned only the once.
197
198 # regex-transliterate
199
200 #!/usr/bin/perl
201
202 use strict;
203 use warnings;
204
205 use Benchmark;
206
207 my $STR = "$$-this and that";
208
209 timethese( 1000000, {
210 'sr' => sub { my $str = $STR; $str =~ s/[aeiou]/x/g; return $str; },
211 'tr' => sub { my $str = $STR; $str =~ tr/aeiou/xxxxx/; return $str; },
212 });
213
214 Running the code gives us our results:
215
216 $> perl regex-transliterate
217
218 Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of sr, tr...
219 sr: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.19 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.19 CPU) @ 840336.13/s (n=1000000)
220 tr: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.49 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.49 CPU) @ 2040816.33/s (n=1000000)
221
222 The "tr" version is a clear winner. One solution is flexible, the
223 other is fast - and it's appropriately the programmer's choice which to
224 use.
225
226 Check the "Benchmark" docs for further useful techniques.
227
229 A slightly larger piece of code will provide something on which a
230 profiler can produce more extensive reporting statistics. This example
231 uses the simplistic "wordmatch" program which parses a given input file
232 and spews out a short report on the contents.
233
234 # wordmatch
235
236 #!/usr/bin/perl
237
238 use strict;
239 use warnings;
240
241 =head1 NAME
242
243 filewords - word analysis of input file
244
245 =head1 SYNOPSIS
246
247 filewords -f inputfilename [-d]
248
249 =head1 DESCRIPTION
250
251 This program parses the given filename, specified with C<-f>, and
252 displays a simple analysis of the words found therein. Use the C<-d>
253 switch to enable debugging messages.
254
255 =cut
256
257 use FileHandle;
258 use Getopt::Long;
259
260 my $debug = 0;
261 my $file = '';
262
263 my $result = GetOptions (
264 'debug' => \$debug,
265 'file=s' => \$file,
266 );
267 die("invalid args") unless $result;
268
269 unless ( -f $file ) {
270 die("Usage: $0 -f filename [-d]");
271 }
272 my $FH = FileHandle->new("< $file")
273 or die("unable to open file($file): $!");
274
275 my $i_LINES = 0;
276 my $i_WORDS = 0;
277 my %count = ();
278
279 my @lines = <$FH>;
280 foreach my $line ( @lines ) {
281 $i_LINES++;
282 $line =~ s/\n//;
283 my @words = split(/ +/, $line);
284 my $i_words = scalar(@words);
285 $i_WORDS = $i_WORDS + $i_words;
286 debug("line: $i_LINES supplying $i_words words: @words");
287 my $i_word = 0;
288 foreach my $word ( @words ) {
289 $i_word++;
290 $count{$i_LINES}{spec} += matches($i_word, $word,
291 '[^a-zA-Z0-9]');
292 $count{$i_LINES}{only} += matches($i_word, $word,
293 '^[^a-zA-Z0-9]+$');
294 $count{$i_LINES}{cons} += matches($i_word, $word,
295 '^[(?i:bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxyz)]+$');
296 $count{$i_LINES}{vows} += matches($i_word, $word,
297 '^[(?i:aeiou)]+$');
298 $count{$i_LINES}{caps} += matches($i_word, $word,
299 '^[(A-Z)]+$');
300 }
301 }
302
303 print report( %count );
304
305 sub matches {
306 my $i_wd = shift;
307 my $word = shift;
308 my $regex = shift;
309 my $has = 0;
310
311 if ( $word =~ /($regex)/ ) {
312 $has++ if $1;
313 }
314
315 debug( "word: $i_wd "
316 . ($has ? 'matches' : 'does not match')
317 . " chars: /$regex/");
318
319 return $has;
320 }
321
322 sub report {
323 my %report = @_;
324 my %rep;
325
326 foreach my $line ( keys %report ) {
327 foreach my $key ( keys %{ $report{$line} } ) {
328 $rep{$key} += $report{$line}{$key};
329 }
330 }
331
332 my $report = qq|
333 $0 report for $file:
334 lines in file: $i_LINES
335 words in file: $i_WORDS
336 words with special (non-word) characters: $i_spec
337 words with only special (non-word) characters: $i_only
338 words with only consonants: $i_cons
339 words with only capital letters: $i_caps
340 words with only vowels: $i_vows
341 |;
342
343 return $report;
344 }
345
346 sub debug {
347 my $message = shift;
348
349 if ( $debug ) {
350 print STDERR "DBG: $message\n";
351 }
352 }
353
354 exit 0;
355
356 Devel::DProf
357 This venerable module has been the de-facto standard for Perl code
358 profiling for more than a decade, but has been replaced by a number of
359 other modules which have brought us back to the 21st century. Although
360 you're recommended to evaluate your tool from the several mentioned
361 here and from the CPAN list at the base of this document, (and
362 currently Devel::NYTProf seems to be the weapon of choice - see below),
363 we'll take a quick look at the output from Devel::DProf first, to set a
364 baseline for Perl profiling tools. Run the above program under the
365 control of "Devel::DProf" by using the "-d" switch on the command-line.
366
367 $> perl -d:DProf wordmatch -f perl5db.pl
368
369 <...multiple lines snipped...>
370
371 wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
372 lines in file: 9428
373 words in file: 50243
374 words with special (non-word) characters: 20480
375 words with only special (non-word) characters: 7790
376 words with only consonants: 4801
377 words with only capital letters: 1316
378 words with only vowels: 1701
379
380 "Devel::DProf" produces a special file, called tmon.out by default, and
381 this file is read by the "dprofpp" program, which is already installed
382 as part of the "Devel::DProf" distribution. If you call "dprofpp" with
383 no options, it will read the tmon.out file in the current directory and
384 produce a human readable statistics report of the run of your program.
385 Note that this may take a little time.
386
387 $> dprofpp
388
389 Total Elapsed Time = 2.951677 Seconds
390 User+System Time = 2.871677 Seconds
391 Exclusive Times
392 %Time ExclSec CumulS #Calls sec/call Csec/c Name
393 102. 2.945 3.003 251215 0.0000 0.0000 main::matches
394 2.40 0.069 0.069 260643 0.0000 0.0000 main::debug
395 1.74 0.050 0.050 1 0.0500 0.0500 main::report
396 1.04 0.030 0.049 4 0.0075 0.0123 main::BEGIN
397 0.35 0.010 0.010 3 0.0033 0.0033 Exporter::as_heavy
398 0.35 0.010 0.010 7 0.0014 0.0014 IO::File::BEGIN
399 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - Getopt::Long::FindOption
400 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - Symbol::BEGIN
401 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - Fcntl::BEGIN
402 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - Fcntl::bootstrap
403 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - warnings::BEGIN
404 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - IO::bootstrap
405 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - Getopt::Long::ConfigDefaults
406 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - Getopt::Long::Configure
407 0.00 - -0.000 1 - - Symbol::gensym
408
409 "dprofpp" will produce some quite detailed reporting on the activity of
410 the "wordmatch" program. The wallclock, user and system, times are at
411 the top of the analysis, and after this are the main columns defining
412 which define the report. Check the "dprofpp" docs for details of the
413 many options it supports.
414
415 See also "Apache::DProf" which hooks "Devel::DProf" into "mod_perl".
416
417 Devel::Profiler
418 Let's take a look at the same program using a different profiler:
419 "Devel::Profiler", a drop-in Perl-only replacement for "Devel::DProf".
420 The usage is very slightly different in that instead of using the
421 special "-d:" flag, you pull "Devel::Profiler" in directly as a module
422 using "-M".
423
424 $> perl -MDevel::Profiler wordmatch -f perl5db.pl
425
426 <...multiple lines snipped...>
427
428 wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
429 lines in file: 9428
430 words in file: 50243
431 words with special (non-word) characters: 20480
432 words with only special (non-word) characters: 7790
433 words with only consonants: 4801
434 words with only capital letters: 1316
435 words with only vowels: 1701
436
437 "Devel::Profiler" generates a tmon.out file which is compatible with
438 the "dprofpp" program, thus saving the construction of a dedicated
439 statistics reader program. "dprofpp" usage is therefore identical to
440 the above example.
441
442 $> dprofpp
443
444 Total Elapsed Time = 20.984 Seconds
445 User+System Time = 19.981 Seconds
446 Exclusive Times
447 %Time ExclSec CumulS #Calls sec/call Csec/c Name
448 49.0 9.792 14.509 251215 0.0000 0.0001 main::matches
449 24.4 4.887 4.887 260643 0.0000 0.0000 main::debug
450 0.25 0.049 0.049 1 0.0490 0.0490 main::report
451 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Getopt::Long::GetOptions
452 0.00 0.000 0.000 2 0.0000 0.0000 Getopt::Long::ParseOptionSpec
453 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Getopt::Long::FindOption
454 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 IO::File::new
455 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 IO::Handle::new
456 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Symbol::gensym
457 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 IO::File::open
458
459 Interestingly we get slightly different results, which is mostly
460 because the algorithm which generates the report is different, even
461 though the output file format was allegedly identical. The elapsed,
462 user and system times are clearly showing the time it took for
463 "Devel::Profiler" to execute its own run, but the column listings feel
464 more accurate somehow than the ones we had earlier from "Devel::DProf".
465 The 102% figure has disappeared, for example. This is where we have to
466 use the tools at our disposal, and recognise their pros and cons,
467 before using them. Interestingly, the numbers of calls for each
468 subroutine are identical in the two reports, it's the percentages which
469 differ. As the author of "Devel::Proviler" writes:
470
471 ...running HTML::Template's test suite under Devel::DProf shows
472 output() taking NO time but Devel::Profiler shows around 10% of the
473 time is in output(). I don't know which to trust but my gut tells me
474 something is wrong with Devel::DProf. HTML::Template::output() is a
475 big routine that's called for every test. Either way, something needs
476 fixing.
477
478 YMMV.
479
480 See also "Devel::Apache::Profiler" which hooks "Devel::Profiler" into
481 "mod_perl".
482
483 Devel::SmallProf
484 The "Devel::SmallProf" profiler examines the runtime of your Perl
485 program and produces a line-by-line listing to show how many times each
486 line was called, and how long each line took to execute. It is called
487 by supplying the familiar "-d" flag to Perl at runtime.
488
489 $> perl -d:SmallProf wordmatch -f perl5db.pl
490
491 <...multiple lines snipped...>
492
493 wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
494 lines in file: 9428
495 words in file: 50243
496 words with special (non-word) characters: 20480
497 words with only special (non-word) characters: 7790
498 words with only consonants: 4801
499 words with only capital letters: 1316
500 words with only vowels: 1701
501
502 "Devel::SmallProf" writes it's output into a file called smallprof.out,
503 by default. The format of the file looks like this:
504
505 <num> <time> <ctime> <line>:<text>
506
507 When the program has terminated, the output may be examined and sorted
508 using any standard text filtering utilities. Something like the
509 following may be sufficient:
510
511 $> cat smallprof.out | grep \d*: | sort -k3 | tac | head -n20
512
513 251215 1.65674 7.68000 75: if ( $word =~ /($regex)/ ) {
514 251215 0.03264 4.40000 79: debug("word: $i_wd ".($has ? 'matches' :
515 251215 0.02693 4.10000 81: return $has;
516 260643 0.02841 4.07000 128: if ( $debug ) {
517 260643 0.02601 4.04000 126: my $message = shift;
518 251215 0.02641 3.91000 73: my $has = 0;
519 251215 0.03311 3.71000 70: my $i_wd = shift;
520 251215 0.02699 3.69000 72: my $regex = shift;
521 251215 0.02766 3.68000 71: my $word = shift;
522 50243 0.59726 1.00000 59: $count{$i_LINES}{cons} =
523 50243 0.48175 0.92000 61: $count{$i_LINES}{spec} =
524 50243 0.00644 0.89000 56: my $i_cons = matches($i_word, $word,
525 50243 0.48837 0.88000 63: $count{$i_LINES}{caps} =
526 50243 0.00516 0.88000 58: my $i_caps = matches($i_word, $word, '^[(A-
527 50243 0.00631 0.81000 54: my $i_spec = matches($i_word, $word, '[^a-
528 50243 0.00496 0.80000 57: my $i_vows = matches($i_word, $word,
529 50243 0.00688 0.80000 53: $i_word++;
530 50243 0.48469 0.79000 62: $count{$i_LINES}{only} =
531 50243 0.48928 0.77000 60: $count{$i_LINES}{vows} =
532 50243 0.00683 0.75000 55: my $i_only = matches($i_word, $word, '^[^a-
533
534 You can immediately see a slightly different focus to the subroutine
535 profiling modules, and we start to see exactly which line of code is
536 taking the most time. That regex line is looking a bit suspicious, for
537 example. Remember that these tools are supposed to be used together,
538 there is no single best way to profile your code, you need to use the
539 best tools for the job.
540
541 See also "Apache::SmallProf" which hooks "Devel::SmallProf" into
542 "mod_perl".
543
544 Devel::FastProf
545 "Devel::FastProf" is another Perl line profiler. This was written with
546 a view to getting a faster line profiler, than is possible with for
547 example "Devel::SmallProf", because it's written in "C". To use
548 "Devel::FastProf", supply the "-d" argument to Perl:
549
550 $> perl -d:FastProf wordmatch -f perl5db.pl
551
552 <...multiple lines snipped...>
553
554 wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
555 lines in file: 9428
556 words in file: 50243
557 words with special (non-word) characters: 20480
558 words with only special (non-word) characters: 7790
559 words with only consonants: 4801
560 words with only capital letters: 1316
561 words with only vowels: 1701
562
563 "Devel::FastProf" writes statistics to the file fastprof.out in the
564 current directory. The output file, which can be specified, can be
565 interpreted by using the "fprofpp" command-line program.
566
567 $> fprofpp | head -n20
568
569 # fprofpp output format is:
570 # filename:line time count: source
571 wordmatch:75 3.93338 251215: if ( $word =~ /($regex)/ ) {
572 wordmatch:79 1.77774 251215: debug("word: $i_wd ".($has ? 'matches' : 'does not match')." chars: /$regex/");
573 wordmatch:81 1.47604 251215: return $has;
574 wordmatch:126 1.43441 260643: my $message = shift;
575 wordmatch:128 1.42156 260643: if ( $debug ) {
576 wordmatch:70 1.36824 251215: my $i_wd = shift;
577 wordmatch:71 1.36739 251215: my $word = shift;
578 wordmatch:72 1.35939 251215: my $regex = shift;
579
580 Straightaway we can see that the number of times each line has been
581 called is identical to the "Devel::SmallProf" output, and the sequence
582 is only very slightly different based on the ordering of the amount of
583 time each line took to execute, "if ( $debug ) { " and "my $message =
584 shift;", for example. The differences in the actual times recorded
585 might be in the algorithm used internally, or it could be due to system
586 resource limitations or contention.
587
588 See also the DBIx::Profile which will profile database queries running
589 under the "DBIx::*" namespace.
590
591 Devel::NYTProf
592 "Devel::NYTProf" is the next generation of Perl code profiler, fixing
593 many shortcomings in other tools and implementing many cool features.
594 First of all it can be used as either a line profiler, a block or a
595 subroutine profiler, all at once. It can also use sub-microsecond
596 (100ns) resolution on systems which provide "clock_gettime()". It can
597 be started and stopped even by the program being profiled. It's a one-
598 line entry to profile "mod_perl" applications. It's written in "c" and
599 is probably the fastest profiler available for Perl. The list of
600 coolness just goes on. Enough of that, let's see how to it works -
601 just use the familiar "-d" switch to plug it in and run the code.
602
603 $> perl -d:NYTProf wordmatch -f perl5db.pl
604
605 wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
606 lines in file: 9427
607 words in file: 50243
608 words with special (non-word) characters: 20480
609 words with only special (non-word) characters: 7790
610 words with only consonants: 4801
611 words with only capital letters: 1316
612 words with only vowels: 1701
613
614 "NYTProf" will generate a report database into the file nytprof.out by
615 default. Human readable reports can be generated from here by using
616 the supplied "nytprofhtml" (HTML output) and "nytprofcsv" (CSV output)
617 programs. We've used the Unix system "html2text" utility to convert
618 the nytprof/index.html file for convenience here.
619
620 $> html2text nytprof/index.html
621
622 Performance Profile Index
623 For wordmatch
624 Run on Fri Sep 26 13:46:39 2008
625 Reported on Fri Sep 26 13:47:23 2008
626
627 Top 15 Subroutines -- ordered by exclusive time
628 |Calls |P |F |Inclusive|Exclusive|Subroutine |
629 | | | |Time |Time | |
630 |251215|5 |1 |13.09263 |10.47692 |main:: |matches |
631 |260642|2 |1 |2.71199 |2.71199 |main:: |debug |
632 |1 |1 |1 |0.21404 |0.21404 |main:: |report |
633 |2 |2 |2 |0.00511 |0.00511 |XSLoader:: |load (xsub) |
634 |14 |14|7 |0.00304 |0.00298 |Exporter:: |import |
635 |3 |1 |1 |0.00265 |0.00254 |Exporter:: |as_heavy |
636 |10 |10|4 |0.00140 |0.00140 |vars:: |import |
637 |13 |13|1 |0.00129 |0.00109 |constant:: |import |
638 |1 |1 |1 |0.00360 |0.00096 |FileHandle:: |import |
639 |3 |3 |3 |0.00086 |0.00074 |warnings::register::|import |
640 |9 |3 |1 |0.00036 |0.00036 |strict:: |bits |
641 |13 |13|13|0.00032 |0.00029 |strict:: |import |
642 |2 |2 |2 |0.00020 |0.00020 |warnings:: |import |
643 |2 |1 |1 |0.00020 |0.00020 |Getopt::Long:: |ParseOptionSpec|
644 |7 |7 |6 |0.00043 |0.00020 |strict:: |unimport |
645
646 For more information see the full list of 189 subroutines.
647
648 The first part of the report already shows the critical information
649 regarding which subroutines are using the most time. The next gives
650 some statistics about the source files profiled.
651
652 Source Code Files -- ordered by exclusive time then name
653 |Stmts |Exclusive|Avg. |Reports |Source File |
654 | |Time | | | |
655 |2699761|15.66654 |6e-06 |line . block . sub|wordmatch |
656 |35 |0.02187 |0.00062|line . block . sub|IO/Handle.pm |
657 |274 |0.01525 |0.00006|line . block . sub|Getopt/Long.pm |
658 |20 |0.00585 |0.00029|line . block . sub|Fcntl.pm |
659 |128 |0.00340 |0.00003|line . block . sub|Exporter/Heavy.pm |
660 |42 |0.00332 |0.00008|line . block . sub|IO/File.pm |
661 |261 |0.00308 |0.00001|line . block . sub|Exporter.pm |
662 |323 |0.00248 |8e-06 |line . block . sub|constant.pm |
663 |12 |0.00246 |0.00021|line . block . sub|File/Spec/Unix.pm |
664 |191 |0.00240 |0.00001|line . block . sub|vars.pm |
665 |77 |0.00201 |0.00003|line . block . sub|FileHandle.pm |
666 |12 |0.00198 |0.00016|line . block . sub|Carp.pm |
667 |14 |0.00175 |0.00013|line . block . sub|Symbol.pm |
668 |15 |0.00130 |0.00009|line . block . sub|IO.pm |
669 |22 |0.00120 |0.00005|line . block . sub|IO/Seekable.pm |
670 |198 |0.00085 |4e-06 |line . block . sub|warnings/register.pm|
671 |114 |0.00080 |7e-06 |line . block . sub|strict.pm |
672 |47 |0.00068 |0.00001|line . block . sub|warnings.pm |
673 |27 |0.00054 |0.00002|line . block . sub|overload.pm |
674 |9 |0.00047 |0.00005|line . block . sub|SelectSaver.pm |
675 |13 |0.00045 |0.00003|line . block . sub|File/Spec.pm |
676 |2701595|15.73869 | |Total |
677 |128647 |0.74946 | |Average |
678 | |0.00201 |0.00003|Median |
679 | |0.00121 |0.00003|Deviation |
680
681 Report produced by the NYTProf 2.03 Perl profiler, developed by Tim Bunce and
682 Adam Kaplan.
683
684 At this point, if you're using the html report, you can click through
685 the various links to bore down into each subroutine and each line of
686 code. Because we're using the text reporting here, and there's a whole
687 directory full of reports built for each source file, we'll just
688 display a part of the corresponding wordmatch-line.html file,
689 sufficient to give an idea of the sort of output you can expect from
690 this cool tool.
691
692 $> html2text nytprof/wordmatch-line.html
693
694 Performance Profile -- -block view-.-line view-.-sub view-
695 For wordmatch
696 Run on Fri Sep 26 13:46:39 2008
697 Reported on Fri Sep 26 13:47:22 2008
698
699 File wordmatch
700
701 Subroutines -- ordered by exclusive time
702 |Calls |P|F|Inclusive|Exclusive|Subroutine |
703 | | | |Time |Time | |
704 |251215|5|1|13.09263 |10.47692 |main::|matches|
705 |260642|2|1|2.71199 |2.71199 |main::|debug |
706 |1 |1|1|0.21404 |0.21404 |main::|report |
707 |0 |0|0|0 |0 |main::|BEGIN |
708
709
710 |Line|Stmts.|Exclusive|Avg. |Code |
711 | | |Time | | |
712 |1 | | | |#!/usr/bin/perl |
713 |2 | | | | |
714 | | | | |use strict; |
715 |3 |3 |0.00086 |0.00029|# spent 0.00003s making 1 calls to strict:: |
716 | | | | |import |
717 | | | | |use warnings; |
718 |4 |3 |0.01563 |0.00521|# spent 0.00012s making 1 calls to warnings:: |
719 | | | | |import |
720 |5 | | | | |
721 |6 | | | |=head1 NAME |
722 |7 | | | | |
723 |8 | | | |filewords - word analysis of input file |
724 <...snip...>
725 |62 |1 |0.00445 |0.00445|print report( %count ); |
726 | | | | |# spent 0.21404s making 1 calls to main::report|
727 |63 | | | | |
728 | | | | |# spent 23.56955s (10.47692+2.61571) within |
729 | | | | |main::matches which was called 251215 times, |
730 | | | | |avg 0.00005s/call: # 50243 times |
731 | | | | |(2.12134+0.51939s) at line 57 of wordmatch, avg|
732 | | | | |0.00005s/call # 50243 times (2.17735+0.54550s) |
733 |64 | | | |at line 56 of wordmatch, avg 0.00005s/call # |
734 | | | | |50243 times (2.10992+0.51797s) at line 58 of |
735 | | | | |wordmatch, avg 0.00005s/call # 50243 times |
736 | | | | |(2.12696+0.51598s) at line 55 of wordmatch, avg|
737 | | | | |0.00005s/call # 50243 times (1.94134+0.51687s) |
738 | | | | |at line 54 of wordmatch, avg 0.00005s/call |
739 | | | | |sub matches { |
740 <...snip...>
741 |102 | | | | |
742 | | | | |# spent 2.71199s within main::debug which was |
743 | | | | |called 260642 times, avg 0.00001s/call: # |
744 | | | | |251215 times (2.61571+0s) by main::matches at |
745 |103 | | | |line 74 of wordmatch, avg 0.00001s/call # 9427 |
746 | | | | |times (0.09628+0s) at line 50 of wordmatch, avg|
747 | | | | |0.00001s/call |
748 | | | | |sub debug { |
749 |104 |260642|0.58496 |2e-06 |my $message = shift; |
750 |105 | | | | |
751 |106 |260642|1.09917 |4e-06 |if ( $debug ) { |
752 |107 | | | |print STDERR "DBG: $message\n"; |
753 |108 | | | |} |
754 |109 | | | |} |
755 |110 | | | | |
756 |111 |1 |0.01501 |0.01501|exit 0; |
757 |112 | | | | |
758
759 Oodles of very useful information in there - this seems to be the way
760 forward.
761
762 See also "Devel::NYTProf::Apache" which hooks "Devel::NYTProf" into
763 "mod_perl".
764
766 Perl modules are not the only tools a performance analyst has at their
767 disposal, system tools like "time" should not be overlooked as the next
768 example shows, where we take a quick look at sorting. Many books,
769 theses and articles, have been written about efficient sorting
770 algorithms, and this is not the place to repeat such work, there's
771 several good sorting modules which deserve taking a look at too:
772 "Sort::Maker", "Sort::Key" spring to mind. However, it's still
773 possible to make some observations on certain Perl specific
774 interpretations on issues relating to sorting data sets and give an
775 example or two with regard to how sorting large data volumes can effect
776 performance. Firstly, an often overlooked point when sorting large
777 amounts of data, one can attempt to reduce the data set to be dealt
778 with and in many cases "grep()" can be quite useful as a simple filter:
779
780 @data = sort grep { /$filter/ } @incoming
781
782 A command such as this can vastly reduce the volume of material to
783 actually sort through in the first place, and should not be too lightly
784 disregarded purely on the basis of its simplicity. The "KISS"
785 principle is too often overlooked - the next example uses the simple
786 system "time" utility to demonstrate. Let's take a look at an actual
787 example of sorting the contents of a large file, an apache logfile
788 would do. This one has over a quarter of a million lines, is 50M in
789 size, and a snippet of it looks like this:
790
791 # logfile
792
793 188.209-65-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be - - [08/Feb/2007:12:57:16 +0000] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 209 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"
794 188.209-65-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be - - [08/Feb/2007:12:57:16 +0000] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 209 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"
795 151.56.71.198 - - [08/Feb/2007:12:57:41 +0000] "GET /suse-on-vaio.html HTTP/1.1" 200 2858 "http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/sony.html" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1"
796 151.56.71.198 - - [08/Feb/2007:12:57:42 +0000] "GET /data/css HTTP/1.1" 404 206 "http://www.rfi.net/suse-on-vaio.html" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1"
797 151.56.71.198 - - [08/Feb/2007:12:57:43 +0000] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 209 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1"
798 217.113.68.60 - - [08/Feb/2007:13:02:15 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 304 - "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"
799 217.113.68.60 - - [08/Feb/2007:13:02:16 +0000] "GET /data/css HTTP/1.1" 404 206 "http://www.rfi.net/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"
800 debora.to.isac.cnr.it - - [08/Feb/2007:13:03:58 +0000] "GET /suse-on-vaio.html HTTP/1.1" 200 2858 "http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/sony.html" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.4; Linux) KHTML/3.4.0 (like Gecko)"
801 debora.to.isac.cnr.it - - [08/Feb/2007:13:03:58 +0000] "GET /data/css HTTP/1.1" 404 206 "http://www.rfi.net/suse-on-vaio.html" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.4; Linux) KHTML/3.4.0 (like Gecko)"
802 debora.to.isac.cnr.it - - [08/Feb/2007:13:03:58 +0000] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 209 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.4; Linux) KHTML/3.4.0 (like Gecko)"
803 195.24.196.99 - - [08/Feb/2007:13:26:48 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 3309 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9"
804 195.24.196.99 - - [08/Feb/2007:13:26:58 +0000] "GET /data/css HTTP/1.0" 404 206 "http://www.rfi.net/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9"
805 195.24.196.99 - - [08/Feb/2007:13:26:59 +0000] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.0" 404 209 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9"
806 crawl1.cosmixcorp.com - - [08/Feb/2007:13:27:57 +0000] "GET /robots.txt HTTP/1.0" 200 179 "-" "voyager/1.0"
807 crawl1.cosmixcorp.com - - [08/Feb/2007:13:28:25 +0000] "GET /links.html HTTP/1.0" 200 3413 "-" "voyager/1.0"
808 fhm226.internetdsl.tpnet.pl - - [08/Feb/2007:13:37:32 +0000] "GET /suse-on-vaio.html HTTP/1.1" 200 2858 "http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/sony.html" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"
809 fhm226.internetdsl.tpnet.pl - - [08/Feb/2007:13:37:34 +0000] "GET /data/css HTTP/1.1" 404 206 "http://www.rfi.net/suse-on-vaio.html" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"
810 80.247.140.134 - - [08/Feb/2007:13:57:35 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 3309 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
811 80.247.140.134 - - [08/Feb/2007:13:57:37 +0000] "GET /data/css HTTP/1.1" 404 206 "http://www.rfi.net" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
812 pop.compuscan.co.za - - [08/Feb/2007:14:10:43 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 3309 "-" "www.clamav.net"
813 livebot-207-46-98-57.search.live.com - - [08/Feb/2007:14:12:04 +0000] "GET /robots.txt HTTP/1.0" 200 179 "-" "msnbot/1.0 (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)"
814 livebot-207-46-98-57.search.live.com - - [08/Feb/2007:14:12:04 +0000] "GET /html/oracle.html HTTP/1.0" 404 214 "-" "msnbot/1.0 (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)"
815 dslb-088-064-005-154.pools.arcor-ip.net - - [08/Feb/2007:14:12:15 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 3309 "-" "www.clamav.net"
816 196.201.92.41 - - [08/Feb/2007:14:15:01 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 3309 "-" "MOT-L7/08.B7.DCR MIB/2.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1"
817
818 The specific task here is to sort the 286,525 lines of this file by
819 Response Code, Query, Browser, Referring Url, and lastly Date. One
820 solution might be to use the following code, which iterates over the
821 files given on the command-line.
822
823 # sort-apache-log
824
825 #!/usr/bin/perl -n
826
827 use strict;
828 use warnings;
829
830 my @data;
831
832 LINE:
833 while ( <> ) {
834 my $line = $_;
835 if (
836 $line =~ m/^(
837 ([\w\.\-]+) # client
838 \s*-\s*-\s*\[
839 ([^]]+) # date
840 \]\s*"\w+\s*
841 (\S+) # query
842 [^"]+"\s*
843 (\d+) # status
844 \s+\S+\s+"[^"]*"\s+"
845 ([^"]*) # browser
846 "
847 .*
848 )$/x
849 ) {
850 my @chunks = split(/ +/, $line);
851 my $ip = $1;
852 my $date = $2;
853 my $query = $3;
854 my $status = $4;
855 my $browser = $5;
856
857 push(@data, [$ip, $date, $query, $status, $browser, $line]);
858 }
859 }
860
861 my @sorted = sort {
862 $a->[3] cmp $b->[3]
863 ||
864 $a->[2] cmp $b->[2]
865 ||
866 $a->[0] cmp $b->[0]
867 ||
868 $a->[1] cmp $b->[1]
869 ||
870 $a->[4] cmp $b->[4]
871 } @data;
872
873 foreach my $data ( @sorted ) {
874 print $data->[5];
875 }
876
877 exit 0;
878
879 When running this program, redirect "STDOUT" so it is possible to check
880 the output is correct from following test runs and use the system
881 "time" utility to check the overall runtime.
882
883 $> time ./sort-apache-log logfile > out-sort
884
885 real 0m17.371s
886 user 0m15.757s
887 sys 0m0.592s
888
889 The program took just over 17 wallclock seconds to run. Note the
890 different values "time" outputs, it's important to always use the same
891 one, and to not confuse what each one means.
892
893 Elapsed Real Time
894 The overall, or wallclock, time between when "time" was called, and
895 when it terminates. The elapsed time includes both user and system
896 times, and time spent waiting for other users and processes on the
897 system. Inevitably, this is the most approximate of the
898 measurements given.
899
900 User CPU Time
901 The user time is the amount of time the entire process spent on
902 behalf of the user on this system executing this program.
903
904 System CPU Time
905 The system time is the amount of time the kernel itself spent
906 executing routines, or system calls, on behalf of this process
907 user.
908
909 Running this same process as a "Schwarzian Transform" it is possible to
910 eliminate the input and output arrays for storing all the data, and
911 work on the input directly as it arrives too. Otherwise, the code
912 looks fairly similar:
913
914 # sort-apache-log-schwarzian
915
916 #!/usr/bin/perl -n
917
918 use strict;
919 use warnings;
920
921 print
922
923 map $_->[0] =>
924
925 sort {
926 $a->[4] cmp $b->[4]
927 ||
928 $a->[3] cmp $b->[3]
929 ||
930 $a->[1] cmp $b->[1]
931 ||
932 $a->[2] cmp $b->[2]
933 ||
934 $a->[5] cmp $b->[5]
935 }
936 map [ $_, m/^(
937 ([\w\.\-]+) # client
938 \s*-\s*-\s*\[
939 ([^]]+) # date
940 \]\s*"\w+\s*
941 (\S+) # query
942 [^"]+"\s*
943 (\d+) # status
944 \s+\S+\s+"[^"]*"\s+"
945 ([^"]*) # browser
946 "
947 .*
948 )$/xo ]
949
950 => <>;
951
952 exit 0;
953
954 Run the new code against the same logfile, as above, to check the new
955 time.
956
957 $> time ./sort-apache-log-schwarzian logfile > out-schwarz
958
959 real 0m9.664s
960 user 0m8.873s
961 sys 0m0.704s
962
963 The time has been cut in half, which is a respectable speed improvement
964 by any standard. Naturally, it is important to check the output is
965 consistent with the first program run, this is where the Unix system
966 "cksum" utility comes in.
967
968 $> cksum out-sort out-schwarz
969 3044173777 52029194 out-sort
970 3044173777 52029194 out-schwarz
971
972 BTW. Beware too of pressure from managers who see you speed a program
973 up by 50% of the runtime once, only to get a request one month later to
974 do the same again (true story) - you'll just have to point out you're
975 only human, even if you are a Perl programmer, and you'll see what you
976 can do...
977
979 An essential part of any good development process is appropriate error
980 handling with appropriately informative messages, however there exists
981 a school of thought which suggests that log files should be chatty, as
982 if the chain of unbroken output somehow ensures the survival of the
983 program. If speed is in any way an issue, this approach is wrong.
984
985 A common sight is code which looks something like this:
986
987 logger->debug( "A logging message via process-id: $$ INC: "
988 . Dumper(\%INC) )
989
990 The problem is that this code will always be parsed and executed, even
991 when the debug level set in the logging configuration file is zero.
992 Once the debug() subroutine has been entered, and the internal $debug
993 variable confirmed to be zero, for example, the message which has been
994 sent in will be discarded and the program will continue. In the
995 example given though, the "\%INC" hash will already have been dumped,
996 and the message string constructed, all of which work could be bypassed
997 by a debug variable at the statement level, like this:
998
999 logger->debug( "A logging message via process-id: $$ INC: "
1000 . Dumper(\%INC) ) if $DEBUG;
1001
1002 This effect can be demonstrated by setting up a test script with both
1003 forms, including a "debug()" subroutine to emulate typical "logger()"
1004 functionality.
1005
1006 # ifdebug
1007
1008 #!/usr/bin/perl
1009
1010 use strict;
1011 use warnings;
1012
1013 use Benchmark;
1014 use Data::Dumper;
1015 my $DEBUG = 0;
1016
1017 sub debug {
1018 my $msg = shift;
1019
1020 if ( $DEBUG ) {
1021 print "DEBUG: $msg\n";
1022 }
1023 };
1024
1025 timethese(100000, {
1026 'debug' => sub {
1027 debug( "A $0 logging message via process-id: $$" . Dumper(\%INC) )
1028 },
1029 'ifdebug' => sub {
1030 debug( "A $0 logging message via process-id: $$" . Dumper(\%INC) ) if $DEBUG
1031 },
1032 });
1033
1034 Let's see what "Benchmark" makes of this:
1035
1036 $> perl ifdebug
1037 Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of constant, sub...
1038 ifdebug: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.01 CPU) @ 10000000.00/s (n=100000)
1039 (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
1040 debug: 14 wallclock secs (13.18 usr + 0.04 sys = 13.22 CPU) @ 7564.30/s (n=100000)
1041
1042 In the one case the code, which does exactly the same thing as far as
1043 outputting any debugging information is concerned, in other words
1044 nothing, takes 14 seconds, and in the other case the code takes one
1045 hundredth of a second. Looks fairly definitive. Use a $DEBUG variable
1046 BEFORE you call the subroutine, rather than relying on the smart
1047 functionality inside it.
1048
1049 Logging if DEBUG (constant)
1050 It's possible to take the previous idea a little further, by using a
1051 compile time "DEBUG" constant.
1052
1053 # ifdebug-constant
1054
1055 #!/usr/bin/perl
1056
1057 use strict;
1058 use warnings;
1059
1060 use Benchmark;
1061 use Data::Dumper;
1062 use constant
1063 DEBUG => 0
1064 ;
1065
1066 sub debug {
1067 if ( DEBUG ) {
1068 my $msg = shift;
1069 print "DEBUG: $msg\n";
1070 }
1071 };
1072
1073 timethese(100000, {
1074 'debug' => sub {
1075 debug( "A $0 logging message via process-id: $$" . Dumper(\%INC) )
1076 },
1077 'constant' => sub {
1078 debug( "A $0 logging message via process-id: $$" . Dumper(\%INC) ) if DEBUG
1079 },
1080 });
1081
1082 Running this program produces the following output:
1083
1084 $> perl ifdebug-constant
1085 Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of constant, sub...
1086 constant: 0 wallclock secs (-0.00 usr + 0.00 sys = -0.00 CPU) @ -7205759403792793600000.00/s (n=100000)
1087 (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
1088 sub: 14 wallclock secs (13.09 usr + 0.00 sys = 13.09 CPU) @ 7639.42/s (n=100000)
1089
1090 The "DEBUG" constant wipes the floor with even the $debug variable,
1091 clocking in at minus zero seconds, and generates a "warning: too few
1092 iterations for a reliable count" message into the bargain. To see what
1093 is really going on, and why we had too few iterations when we thought
1094 we asked for 100000, we can use the very useful "B::Deparse" to inspect
1095 the new code:
1096
1097 $> perl -MO=Deparse ifdebug-constant
1098
1099 use Benchmark;
1100 use Data::Dumper;
1101 use constant ('DEBUG', 0);
1102 sub debug {
1103 use warnings;
1104 use strict 'refs';
1105 0;
1106 }
1107 use warnings;
1108 use strict 'refs';
1109 timethese(100000, {'sub', sub {
1110 debug "A $0 logging message via process-id: $$" . Dumper(\%INC);
1111 }
1112 , 'constant', sub {
1113 0;
1114 }
1115 });
1116 ifdebug-constant syntax OK
1117
1118 The output shows the constant() subroutine we're testing being replaced
1119 with the value of the "DEBUG" constant: zero. The line to be tested
1120 has been completely optimized away, and you can't get much more
1121 efficient than that.
1122
1124 This document has provided several way to go about identifying hot-
1125 spots, and checking whether any modifications have improved the runtime
1126 of the code.
1127
1128 As a final thought, remember that it's not (at the time of writing)
1129 possible to produce a useful program which will run in zero or negative
1130 time and this basic principle can be written as: useful programs are
1131 slow by their very definition. It is of course possible to write a
1132 nearly instantaneous program, but it's not going to do very much,
1133 here's a very efficient one:
1134
1135 $> perl -e 0
1136
1137 Optimizing that any further is a job for "p5p".
1138
1140 Further reading can be found using the modules and links below.
1141
1142 PERLDOCS
1143 For example: "perldoc -f sort".
1144
1145 perlfaq4.
1146
1147 perlfork, perlfunc, perlretut, perlthrtut.
1148
1149 threads.
1150
1151 MAN PAGES
1152 "time".
1153
1154 MODULES
1155 It's not possible to individually showcase all the performance related
1156 code for Perl here, naturally, but here's a short list of modules from
1157 the CPAN which deserve further attention.
1158
1159 Apache::DProf
1160 Apache::SmallProf
1161 Benchmark
1162 DBIx::Profile
1163 Devel::AutoProfiler
1164 Devel::DProf
1165 Devel::DProfLB
1166 Devel::FastProf
1167 Devel::GraphVizProf
1168 Devel::NYTProf
1169 Devel::NYTProf::Apache
1170 Devel::Profiler
1171 Devel::Profile
1172 Devel::Profit
1173 Devel::SmallProf
1174 Devel::WxProf
1175 POE::Devel::Profiler
1176 Sort::Key
1177 Sort::Maker
1178
1179 URLS
1180 Very useful online reference material:
1181
1182 http://www.ccl4.org/~nick/P/Fast_Enough/
1183
1184 http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-optperl.html
1185
1186 http://perlbuzz.com/2007/11/bind-output-variables-in-dbi-for-speed-and-safety.html
1187
1188 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_analysis
1189
1190 http://apache.perl.org/docs/1.0/guide/performance.html
1191
1192 http://perlgolf.sourceforge.net/
1193
1194 http://www.sysarch.com/Perl/sort_paper.html
1195
1197 Richard Foley <richard.foley@rfi.net> Copyright (c) 2008
1198
1199
1200
1201perl v5.28.2 2018-11-01 PERLPERF(1)