Hello Konstantin, Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 7:14:02 PM, you wrote:
KK> Hello Cyphre, KK> Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 6:40:03 PM, you wrote: C>> Hi, C>> I just had a quick look at C>> http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/dybase/doc/dybase.html#comparison . Is Rebol C>> really so slow or it is because the ported code isn't optimized to the C>> language yet? KK> Compare the following results: KK> Rebol: 18 seconds KK> h: make hash! [] KK> start: now/time KK> n: 100000 KK> for i 1 n 1 [ KK> append h i KK> ] KK> print ["Elapsed time for" n "records" (now/time - start)] KK> ----------------------- KK> Python: 0.37 seconds KK> import time KK> d = {} KK> start = time.time() KK> for i in range(0,100000): KK> d[i] = i KK> print 'Elapsed time: ', time.time() - start, ' seconds' KK> -------------------- KK> PHP: 1 seconds (rounded) KK> <?php KK> $start = time(); KK> $arr = array(); KK> for ($i = 0; $i < 10000; $i++) { KK> $arr[$i] = $i; KK> } KK> print("Elapsed time: " . (time() - $start) . " seconds\n"); ?>> It was mistyping in PHP script - 10000 instead of 100000. But with 100000 iterations reported time was the same - 1 second. And if remove assignment to hash table and use just empty loop body (pure speed of interpreter), then times for 10000000 (ten millions) iteration are Python: 14 seconds PHP: 17 seconds Rebol: 58 seconds Also bad result (for Rebol), but 3 times slower is not 50 times slower... -- Best regards, Konstantin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
