On Monday 9 August 2004 07:01 pm, Stuart Johnston wrote:
> Would you be willing to add other modules to your benchmark? I would be
> interested to see how HTTP::Date and DateTime::Format::HTTP (which uses
> HTTP::Date) compare.
Again for a 10,000 iteration test:
Date::Parse::str2time
4 wallclock secs ( 3.80 usr + 0.02 sys = 3.82 CPU)
Time::ParseDate::parsedate
3 wallclock secs ( 3.47 usr + 0.02 sys = 3.49 CPU)
APR::Date::parse_rfc:
0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.04 CPU)
APR::Date::parse_http:
0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.03 CPU)
DateTime::Format::HTTP:
11 wallclock secs (11.03 usr + 0.00 sys = 11.03 CPU)
HTTP::Date:
1 wallclock secs ( 0.59 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.59 CPU)
(for DateTime::Format::HTTP the call tested was actually
"$class->parse_datetime('Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT')->epoch;" as what I
was benchmarking is conversion to epoch time).
--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick
--
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
