1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
|
.\" -*- mode: troff; coding: utf-8 -*-
.\" Automatically generated by Pod::Man 5.01 (Pod::Simple 3.43)
.\"
.\" Standard preamble:
.\" ========================================================================
.de Sp \" Vertical space (when we can't use .PP)
.if t .sp .5v
.if n .sp
..
.de Vb \" Begin verbatim text
.ft CW
.nf
.ne \\$1
..
.de Ve \" End verbatim text
.ft R
.fi
..
.\" \*(C` and \*(C' are quotes in nroff, nothing in troff, for use with C<>.
.ie n \{\
. ds C` ""
. ds C' ""
'br\}
.el\{\
. ds C`
. ds C'
'br\}
.\"
.\" Escape single quotes in literal strings from groff's Unicode transform.
.ie \n(.g .ds Aq \(aq
.el .ds Aq '
.\"
.\" If the F register is >0, we'll generate index entries on stderr for
.\" titles (.TH), headers (.SH), subsections (.SS), items (.Ip), and index
.\" entries marked with X<> in POD. Of course, you'll have to process the
.\" output yourself in some meaningful fashion.
.\"
.\" Avoid warning from groff about undefined register 'F'.
.de IX
..
.nr rF 0
.if \n(.g .if rF .nr rF 1
.if (\n(rF:(\n(.g==0)) \{\
. if \nF \{\
. de IX
. tm Index:\\$1\t\\n%\t"\\$2"
..
. if !\nF==2 \{\
. nr % 0
. nr F 2
. \}
. \}
.\}
.rr rF
.\" ========================================================================
.\"
.IX Title "PERLPERF 1"
.TH PERLPERF 1 2023-11-28 "perl v5.38.2" "Perl Programmers Reference Guide"
.\" For nroff, turn off justification. Always turn off hyphenation; it makes
.\" way too many mistakes in technical documents.
.if n .ad l
.nh
.SH NAME
perlperf \- Perl Performance and Optimization Techniques
.SH DESCRIPTION
.IX Header "DESCRIPTION"
This is an introduction to the use of performance and optimization techniques
which can be used with particular reference to perl programs. While many perl
developers have come from other languages, and can use their prior knowledge
where appropriate, there are many other people who might benefit from a few
perl specific pointers. If you want the condensed version, perhaps the best
advice comes from the renowned Japanese Samurai, Miyamoto Musashi, who said:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& "Do Not Engage in Useless Activity"
.Ve
.PP
in 1645.
.SH OVERVIEW
.IX Header "OVERVIEW"
Perhaps the most common mistake programmers make is to attempt to optimize
their code before a program actually does anything useful \- this is a bad idea.
There's no point in having an extremely fast program that doesn't work. The
first job is to get a program to \fIcorrectly\fR do something \fBuseful\fR, (not to
mention ensuring the test suite is fully functional), and only then to consider
optimizing it. Having decided to optimize existing working code, there are
several simple but essential steps to consider which are intrinsic to any
optimization process.
.SS "ONE STEP SIDEWAYS"
.IX Subsection "ONE STEP SIDEWAYS"
Firstly, you need to establish a baseline time for the existing code, which
timing needs to be reliable and repeatable. You'll probably want to use the
\&\f(CW\*(C`Benchmark\*(C'\fR or \f(CW\*(C`Devel::NYTProf\*(C'\fR modules, or something similar, for this step,
or perhaps the Unix system \f(CW\*(C`time\*(C'\fR utility, whichever is appropriate. See the
base of this document for a longer list of benchmarking and profiling modules,
and recommended further reading.
.SS "ONE STEP FORWARD"
.IX Subsection "ONE STEP FORWARD"
Next, having examined the program for \fIhot spots\fR, (places where the code
seems to run slowly), change the code with the intention of making it run
faster. Using version control software, like \f(CW\*(C`subversion\*(C'\fR, will ensure no
changes are irreversible. It's too easy to fiddle here and fiddle there \-
don't change too much at any one time or you might not discover which piece of
code \fBreally\fR was the slow bit.
.SS "ANOTHER STEP SIDEWAYS"
.IX Subsection "ANOTHER STEP SIDEWAYS"
It's not enough to say: "that will make it run faster", you have to check it.
Rerun the code under control of the benchmarking or profiling modules, from the
first step above, and check that the new code executed the \fBsame task\fR in
\&\fIless time\fR. Save your work and repeat...
.SH "GENERAL GUIDELINES"
.IX Header "GENERAL GUIDELINES"
The critical thing when considering performance is to remember there is no such
thing as a \f(CW\*(C`Golden Bullet\*(C'\fR, which is why there are no rules, only guidelines.
.PP
It is clear that inline code is going to be faster than subroutine or method
calls, because there is less overhead, but this approach has the disadvantage
of being less maintainable and comes at the cost of greater memory usage \-
there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you are searching for an element in
a list, it can be more efficient to store the data in a hash structure, and
then simply look to see whether the key is defined, rather than to loop through
the entire array using \fBgrep()\fR for instance. \fBsubstr()\fR may be (a lot) faster
than \fBgrep()\fR but not as flexible, so you have another trade-off to access. Your
code may contain a line which takes 0.01 of a second to execute which if you
call it 1,000 times, quite likely in a program parsing even medium sized files
for instance, you already have a 10 second delay, in just one single code
location, and if you call that line 100,000 times, your entire program will
slow down to an unbearable crawl.
.PP
Using a subroutine as part of your sort is a powerful way to get exactly what
you want, but will usually be slower than the built-in \fIalphabetic\fR \f(CW\*(C`cmp\*(C'\fR and
\&\fInumeric\fR \f(CW\*(C`<=>\*(C'\fR sort operators. It is possible to make multiple
passes over your data, building indices to make the upcoming sort more
efficient, and to use what is known as the \f(CW\*(C`OM\*(C'\fR (Orcish Maneuver) to cache the
sort keys in advance. The cache lookup, while a good idea, can itself be a
source of slowdown by enforcing a double pass over the data \- once to setup the
cache, and once to sort the data. Using \f(CWpack()\fR to extract the required sort
key into a consistent string can be an efficient way to build a single string
to compare, instead of using multiple sort keys, which makes it possible to use
the standard, written in \f(CW\*(C`c\*(C'\fR and fast, perl \f(CWsort()\fR function on the output,
and is the basis of the \f(CW\*(C`GRT\*(C'\fR (Guttman Rossler Transform). Some string
combinations can slow the \f(CW\*(C`GRT\*(C'\fR down, by just being too plain complex for its
own good.
.PP
For applications using database backends, the standard \f(CW\*(C`DBIx\*(C'\fR namespace has
tries to help with keeping things nippy, not least because it tries to \fInot\fR
query the database until the latest possible moment, but always read the docs
which come with your choice of libraries. Among the many issues facing
developers dealing with databases should remain aware of is to always use
\&\f(CW\*(C`SQL\*(C'\fR placeholders and to consider pre-fetching data sets when this might
prove advantageous. Splitting up a large file by assigning multiple processes
to parsing a single file, using say \f(CW\*(C`POE\*(C'\fR, \f(CW\*(C`threads\*(C'\fR or \f(CW\*(C`fork\*(C'\fR can also be a
useful way of optimizing your usage of the available \f(CW\*(C`CPU\*(C'\fR resources, though
this technique is fraught with concurrency issues and demands high attention to
detail.
.PP
Every case has a specific application and one or more exceptions, and there is
no replacement for running a few tests and finding out which method works best
for your particular environment, this is why writing optimal code is not an
exact science, and why we love using Perl so much \- TMTOWTDI.
.SH BENCHMARKS
.IX Header "BENCHMARKS"
Here are a few examples to demonstrate usage of Perl's benchmarking tools.
.SS "Assigning and Dereferencing Variables."
.IX Subsection "Assigning and Dereferencing Variables."
I'm sure most of us have seen code which looks like, (or worse than), this:
.PP
.Vb 2
\& if ( $obj\->{_ref}\->{_myscore} >= $obj\->{_ref}\->{_yourscore} ) {
\& ...
.Ve
.PP
This sort of code can be a real eyesore to read, as well as being very
sensitive to typos, and it's much clearer to dereference the variable
explicitly. We're side-stepping the issue of working with object-oriented
programming techniques to encapsulate variable access via methods, only
accessible through an object. Here we're just discussing the technical
implementation of choice, and whether this has an effect on performance. We
can see whether this dereferencing operation, has any overhead by putting
comparative code in a file and running a \f(CW\*(C`Benchmark\*(C'\fR test.
.PP
# dereference
.PP
.Vb 1
\& #!/usr/bin/perl
\&
\& use v5.36;
\&
\& use Benchmark;
\&
\& my $ref = {
\& \*(Aqref\*(Aq => {
\& _myscore => \*(Aq100 + 1\*(Aq,
\& _yourscore => \*(Aq102 \- 1\*(Aq,
\& },
\& };
\&
\& timethese(1000000, {
\& \*(Aqdirect\*(Aq => sub {
\& my $x = $ref\->{ref}\->{_myscore} . $ref\->{ref}\->{_yourscore} ;
\& },
\& \*(Aqdereference\*(Aq => sub {
\& my $ref = $ref\->{ref};
\& my $myscore = $ref\->{_myscore};
\& my $yourscore = $ref\->{_yourscore};
\& my $x = $myscore . $yourscore;
\& },
\& });
.Ve
.PP
It's essential to run any timing measurements a sufficient number of times so
the numbers settle on a numerical average, otherwise each run will naturally
fluctuate due to variations in the environment, to reduce the effect of
contention for \f(CW\*(C`CPU\*(C'\fR resources and network bandwidth for instance. Running
the above code for one million iterations, we can take a look at the report
output by the \f(CW\*(C`Benchmark\*(C'\fR module, to see which approach is the most effective.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl dereference
\&
\& Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of dereference, direct...
\& dereference: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.59 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.59 CPU) @ 628930.82/s (n=1000000)
\& direct: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.20 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.20 CPU) @ 833333.33/s (n=1000000)
.Ve
.PP
The difference is clear to see and the dereferencing approach is slower. While
it managed to execute an average of 628,930 times a second during our test, the
direct approach managed to run an additional 204,403 times, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, because there are many examples of code written using the
multiple layer direct variable access, and it's usually horrible. It is,
however, minusculy faster. The question remains whether the minute gain is
actually worth the eyestrain, or the loss of maintainability.
.SS "Search and replace or tr"
.IX Subsection "Search and replace or tr"
If we have a string which needs to be modified, while a regex will almost
always be much more flexible, \f(CW\*(C`tr\*(C'\fR, an oft underused tool, can still be a
useful. One scenario might be replace all vowels with another character. The
regex solution might look like this:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $str =~ s/[aeiou]/x/g
.Ve
.PP
The \f(CW\*(C`tr\*(C'\fR alternative might look like this:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $str =~ tr/aeiou/xxxxx/
.Ve
.PP
We can put that into a test file which we can run to check which approach is
the fastest, using a global \f(CW$STR\fR variable to assign to the \f(CW\*(C`my $str\*(C'\fR
variable so as to avoid perl trying to optimize any of the work away by
noticing it's assigned only the once.
.PP
# regex-transliterate
.PP
.Vb 1
\& #!/usr/bin/perl
\&
\& use v5.36;
\&
\& use Benchmark;
\&
\& my $STR = "$$\-this and that";
\&
\& timethese( 1000000, {
\& \*(Aqsr\*(Aq => sub { my $str = $STR; $str =~ s/[aeiou]/x/g; return $str; },
\& \*(Aqtr\*(Aq => sub { my $str = $STR; $str =~ tr/aeiou/xxxxx/; return $str; },
\& });
.Ve
.PP
Running the code gives us our results:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl regex\-transliterate
\&
\& Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of sr, tr...
\& sr: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.19 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.19 CPU) @ 840336.13/s (n=1000000)
\& tr: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.49 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.49 CPU) @ 2040816.33/s (n=1000000)
.Ve
.PP
The \f(CW\*(C`tr\*(C'\fR version is a clear winner. One solution is flexible, the other is
fast \- and it's appropriately the programmer's choice which to use.
.PP
Check the \f(CW\*(C`Benchmark\*(C'\fR docs for further useful techniques.
.SH "PROFILING TOOLS"
.IX Header "PROFILING TOOLS"
A slightly larger piece of code will provide something on which a profiler can
produce more extensive reporting statistics. This example uses the simplistic
\&\f(CW\*(C`wordmatch\*(C'\fR program which parses a given input file and spews out a short
report on the contents.
.PP
# wordmatch
.PP
.Vb 1
\& #!/usr/bin/perl
\&
\& use v5.36;
\&
\& =head1 NAME
\&
\& filewords \- word analysis of input file
\&
\& =head1 SYNOPSIS
\&
\& filewords \-f inputfilename [\-d]
\&
\& =head1 DESCRIPTION
\&
\& This program parses the given filename, specified with C<\-f>, and
\& displays a simple analysis of the words found therein. Use the C<\-d>
\& switch to enable debugging messages.
\&
\& =cut
\&
\& use FileHandle;
\& use Getopt::Long;
\&
\& my $debug = 0;
\& my $file = \*(Aq\*(Aq;
\&
\& my $result = GetOptions (
\& \*(Aqdebug\*(Aq => \e$debug,
\& \*(Aqfile=s\*(Aq => \e$file,
\& );
\& die("invalid args") unless $result;
\&
\& unless ( \-f $file ) {
\& die("Usage: $0 \-f filename [\-d]");
\& }
\& my $FH = FileHandle\->new("< $file")
\& or die("unable to open file($file): $!");
\&
\& my $i_LINES = 0;
\& my $i_WORDS = 0;
\& my %count = ();
\&
\& my @lines = <$FH>;
\& foreach my $line ( @lines ) {
\& $i_LINES++;
\& $line =~ s/\en//;
\& my @words = split(/ +/, $line);
\& my $i_words = scalar(@words);
\& $i_WORDS = $i_WORDS + $i_words;
\& debug("line: $i_LINES supplying $i_words words: @words");
\& my $i_word = 0;
\& foreach my $word ( @words ) {
\& $i_word++;
\& $count{$i_LINES}{spec} += matches($i_word, $word,
\& \*(Aq[^a\-zA\-Z0\-9]\*(Aq);
\& $count{$i_LINES}{only} += matches($i_word, $word,
\& \*(Aq^[^a\-zA\-Z0\-9]+$\*(Aq);
\& $count{$i_LINES}{cons} += matches($i_word, $word,
\& \*(Aq^[(?i:bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxyz)]+$\*(Aq);
\& $count{$i_LINES}{vows} += matches($i_word, $word,
\& \*(Aq^[(?i:aeiou)]+$\*(Aq);
\& $count{$i_LINES}{caps} += matches($i_word, $word,
\& \*(Aq^[(A\-Z)]+$\*(Aq);
\& }
\& }
\&
\& print report( %count );
\&
\& sub matches {
\& my $i_wd = shift;
\& my $word = shift;
\& my $regex = shift;
\& my $has = 0;
\&
\& if ( $word =~ /($regex)/ ) {
\& $has++ if $1;
\& }
\&
\& debug( "word: $i_wd "
\& . ($has ? \*(Aqmatches\*(Aq : \*(Aqdoes not match\*(Aq)
\& . " chars: /$regex/");
\&
\& return $has;
\& }
\&
\& sub report {
\& my %report = @_;
\& my %rep;
\&
\& foreach my $line ( keys %report ) {
\& foreach my $key ( keys $report{$line}\->%* ) {
\& $rep{$key} += $report{$line}{$key};
\& }
\& }
\&
\& my $report = qq|
\& $0 report for $file:
\& lines in file: $i_LINES
\& words in file: $i_WORDS
\& words with special (non\-word) characters: $i_spec
\& words with only special (non\-word) characters: $i_only
\& words with only consonants: $i_cons
\& words with only capital letters: $i_caps
\& words with only vowels: $i_vows
\& |;
\&
\& return $report;
\& }
\&
\& sub debug {
\& my $message = shift;
\&
\& if ( $debug ) {
\& print STDERR "DBG: $message\en";
\& }
\& }
\&
\& exit 0;
.Ve
.SS Devel::DProf
.IX Subsection "Devel::DProf"
This venerable module has been the de-facto standard for Perl code profiling
for more than a decade, but has been replaced by a number of other modules
which have brought us back to the 21st century. Although you're recommended to
evaluate your tool from the several mentioned here and from the CPAN list at
the base of this document, (and currently Devel::NYTProf seems to be the
weapon of choice \- see below), we'll take a quick look at the output from
Devel::DProf first, to set a baseline for Perl profiling tools. Run the
above program under the control of \f(CW\*(C`Devel::DProf\*(C'\fR by using the \f(CW\*(C`\-d\*(C'\fR switch on
the command-line.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl \-d:DProf wordmatch \-f perl5db.pl
\&
\& <...multiple lines snipped...>
\&
\& wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
\& lines in file: 9428
\& words in file: 50243
\& words with special (non\-word) characters: 20480
\& words with only special (non\-word) characters: 7790
\& words with only consonants: 4801
\& words with only capital letters: 1316
\& words with only vowels: 1701
.Ve
.PP
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::DProf\*(C'\fR produces a special file, called \fItmon.out\fR by default, and
this file is read by the \f(CW\*(C`dprofpp\*(C'\fR program, which is already installed as part
of the \f(CW\*(C`Devel::DProf\*(C'\fR distribution. If you call \f(CW\*(C`dprofpp\*(C'\fR with no options,
it will read the \fItmon.out\fR file in the current directory and produce a human
readable statistics report of the run of your program. Note that this may take
a little time.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> dprofpp
\&
\& Total Elapsed Time = 2.951677 Seconds
\& User+System Time = 2.871677 Seconds
\& Exclusive Times
\& %Time ExclSec CumulS #Calls sec/call Csec/c Name
\& 102. 2.945 3.003 251215 0.0000 0.0000 main::matches
\& 2.40 0.069 0.069 260643 0.0000 0.0000 main::debug
\& 1.74 0.050 0.050 1 0.0500 0.0500 main::report
\& 1.04 0.030 0.049 4 0.0075 0.0123 main::BEGIN
\& 0.35 0.010 0.010 3 0.0033 0.0033 Exporter::as_heavy
\& 0.35 0.010 0.010 7 0.0014 0.0014 IO::File::BEGIN
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- Getopt::Long::FindOption
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- Symbol::BEGIN
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- Fcntl::BEGIN
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- Fcntl::bootstrap
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- warnings::BEGIN
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- IO::bootstrap
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- Getopt::Long::ConfigDefaults
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- Getopt::Long::Configure
\& 0.00 \- \-0.000 1 \- \- Symbol::gensym
.Ve
.PP
\&\f(CW\*(C`dprofpp\*(C'\fR will produce some quite detailed reporting on the activity of the
\&\f(CW\*(C`wordmatch\*(C'\fR program. The wallclock, user and system, times are at the top of
the analysis, and after this are the main columns defining which define the
report. Check the \f(CW\*(C`dprofpp\*(C'\fR docs for details of the many options it supports.
.PP
See also \f(CW\*(C`Apache::DProf\*(C'\fR which hooks \f(CW\*(C`Devel::DProf\*(C'\fR into \f(CW\*(C`mod_perl\*(C'\fR.
.SS Devel::Profiler
.IX Subsection "Devel::Profiler"
Let's take a look at the same program using a different profiler:
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::Profiler\*(C'\fR, a drop-in Perl-only replacement for \f(CW\*(C`Devel::DProf\*(C'\fR. The
usage is very slightly different in that instead of using the special \f(CW\*(C`\-d:\*(C'\fR
flag, you pull \f(CW\*(C`Devel::Profiler\*(C'\fR in directly as a module using \f(CW\*(C`\-M\*(C'\fR.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl \-MDevel::Profiler wordmatch \-f perl5db.pl
\&
\& <...multiple lines snipped...>
\&
\& wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
\& lines in file: 9428
\& words in file: 50243
\& words with special (non\-word) characters: 20480
\& words with only special (non\-word) characters: 7790
\& words with only consonants: 4801
\& words with only capital letters: 1316
\& words with only vowels: 1701
.Ve
.PP
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::Profiler\*(C'\fR generates a tmon.out file which is compatible with the
\&\f(CW\*(C`dprofpp\*(C'\fR program, thus saving the construction of a dedicated statistics
reader program. \f(CW\*(C`dprofpp\*(C'\fR usage is therefore identical to the above example.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> dprofpp
\&
\& Total Elapsed Time = 20.984 Seconds
\& User+System Time = 19.981 Seconds
\& Exclusive Times
\& %Time ExclSec CumulS #Calls sec/call Csec/c Name
\& 49.0 9.792 14.509 251215 0.0000 0.0001 main::matches
\& 24.4 4.887 4.887 260643 0.0000 0.0000 main::debug
\& 0.25 0.049 0.049 1 0.0490 0.0490 main::report
\& 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Getopt::Long::GetOptions
\& 0.00 0.000 0.000 2 0.0000 0.0000 Getopt::Long::ParseOptionSpec
\& 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Getopt::Long::FindOption
\& 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 IO::File::new
\& 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 IO::Handle::new
\& 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 Symbol::gensym
\& 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.0000 0.0000 IO::File::open
.Ve
.PP
Interestingly we get slightly different results, which is mostly because the
algorithm which generates the report is different, even though the output file
format was allegedly identical. The elapsed, user and system times are clearly
showing the time it took for \f(CW\*(C`Devel::Profiler\*(C'\fR to execute its own run, but
the column listings feel more accurate somehow than the ones we had earlier
from \f(CW\*(C`Devel::DProf\*(C'\fR. The 102% figure has disappeared, for example. This is
where we have to use the tools at our disposal, and recognise their pros and
cons, before using them. Interestingly, the numbers of calls for each
subroutine are identical in the two reports, it's the percentages which differ.
As the author of \f(CW\*(C`Devel::Profiler\*(C'\fR writes:
.PP
.Vb 6
\& ...running HTML::Template\*(Aqs test suite under Devel::DProf shows
\& output() taking NO time but Devel::Profiler shows around 10% of the
\& time is in output(). I don\*(Aqt know which to trust but my gut tells me
\& something is wrong with Devel::DProf. HTML::Template::output() is a
\& big routine that\*(Aqs called for every test. Either way, something needs
\& fixing.
.Ve
.PP
YMMV.
.PP
See also \f(CW\*(C`Devel::Apache::Profiler\*(C'\fR which hooks \f(CW\*(C`Devel::Profiler\*(C'\fR
into \f(CW\*(C`mod_perl\*(C'\fR.
.SS Devel::SmallProf
.IX Subsection "Devel::SmallProf"
The \f(CW\*(C`Devel::SmallProf\*(C'\fR profiler examines the runtime of your Perl program and
produces a line-by-line listing to show how many times each line was called,
and how long each line took to execute. It is called by supplying the familiar
\&\f(CW\*(C`\-d\*(C'\fR flag to Perl at runtime.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl \-d:SmallProf wordmatch \-f perl5db.pl
\&
\& <...multiple lines snipped...>
\&
\& wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
\& lines in file: 9428
\& words in file: 50243
\& words with special (non\-word) characters: 20480
\& words with only special (non\-word) characters: 7790
\& words with only consonants: 4801
\& words with only capital letters: 1316
\& words with only vowels: 1701
.Ve
.PP
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::SmallProf\*(C'\fR writes its output into a file called \fIsmallprof.out\fR, by
default. The format of the file looks like this:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& <num> <time> <ctime> <line>:<text>
.Ve
.PP
When the program has terminated, the output may be examined and sorted using
any standard text filtering utilities. Something like the following may be
sufficient:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> cat smallprof.out | grep \ed*: | sort \-k3 | tac | head \-n20
\&
\& 251215 1.65674 7.68000 75: if ( $word =~ /($regex)/ ) {
\& 251215 0.03264 4.40000 79: debug("word: $i_wd ".($has ? \*(Aqmatches\*(Aq :
\& 251215 0.02693 4.10000 81: return $has;
\& 260643 0.02841 4.07000 128: if ( $debug ) {
\& 260643 0.02601 4.04000 126: my $message = shift;
\& 251215 0.02641 3.91000 73: my $has = 0;
\& 251215 0.03311 3.71000 70: my $i_wd = shift;
\& 251215 0.02699 3.69000 72: my $regex = shift;
\& 251215 0.02766 3.68000 71: my $word = shift;
\& 50243 0.59726 1.00000 59: $count{$i_LINES}{cons} =
\& 50243 0.48175 0.92000 61: $count{$i_LINES}{spec} =
\& 50243 0.00644 0.89000 56: my $i_cons = matches($i_word, $word,
\& 50243 0.48837 0.88000 63: $count{$i_LINES}{caps} =
\& 50243 0.00516 0.88000 58: my $i_caps = matches($i_word, $word, \*(Aq^[(A\-
\& 50243 0.00631 0.81000 54: my $i_spec = matches($i_word, $word, \*(Aq[^a\-
\& 50243 0.00496 0.80000 57: my $i_vows = matches($i_word, $word,
\& 50243 0.00688 0.80000 53: $i_word++;
\& 50243 0.48469 0.79000 62: $count{$i_LINES}{only} =
\& 50243 0.48928 0.77000 60: $count{$i_LINES}{vows} =
\& 50243 0.00683 0.75000 55: my $i_only = matches($i_word, $word, \*(Aq^[^a\-
.Ve
.PP
You can immediately see a slightly different focus to the subroutine profiling
modules, and we start to see exactly which line of code is taking the most
time. That regex line is looking a bit suspicious, for example. Remember that
these tools are supposed to be used together, there is no single best way to
profile your code, you need to use the best tools for the job.
.PP
See also \f(CW\*(C`Apache::SmallProf\*(C'\fR which hooks \f(CW\*(C`Devel::SmallProf\*(C'\fR into
\&\f(CW\*(C`mod_perl\*(C'\fR.
.SS Devel::FastProf
.IX Subsection "Devel::FastProf"
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::FastProf\*(C'\fR is another Perl line profiler. This was written with a view
to getting a faster line profiler, than is possible with for example
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::SmallProf\*(C'\fR, because it's written in \f(CW\*(C`C\*(C'\fR. To use \f(CW\*(C`Devel::FastProf\*(C'\fR,
supply the \f(CW\*(C`\-d\*(C'\fR argument to Perl:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl \-d:FastProf wordmatch \-f perl5db.pl
\&
\& <...multiple lines snipped...>
\&
\& wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
\& lines in file: 9428
\& words in file: 50243
\& words with special (non\-word) characters: 20480
\& words with only special (non\-word) characters: 7790
\& words with only consonants: 4801
\& words with only capital letters: 1316
\& words with only vowels: 1701
.Ve
.PP
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::FastProf\*(C'\fR writes statistics to the file \fIfastprof.out\fR in the current
directory. The output file, which can be specified, can be interpreted by using
the \f(CW\*(C`fprofpp\*(C'\fR command-line program.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> fprofpp | head \-n20
\&
\& # fprofpp output format is:
\& # filename:line time count: source
\& wordmatch:75 3.93338 251215: if ( $word =~ /($regex)/ ) {
\& wordmatch:79 1.77774 251215: debug("word: $i_wd ".($has ? \*(Aqmatches\*(Aq : \*(Aqdoes not match\*(Aq)." chars: /$regex/");
\& wordmatch:81 1.47604 251215: return $has;
\& wordmatch:126 1.43441 260643: my $message = shift;
\& wordmatch:128 1.42156 260643: if ( $debug ) {
\& wordmatch:70 1.36824 251215: my $i_wd = shift;
\& wordmatch:71 1.36739 251215: my $word = shift;
\& wordmatch:72 1.35939 251215: my $regex = shift;
.Ve
.PP
Straightaway we can see that the number of times each line has been called is
identical to the \f(CW\*(C`Devel::SmallProf\*(C'\fR output, and the sequence is only very
slightly different based on the ordering of the amount of time each line took
to execute, \f(CW\*(C`if ( $debug ) { \*(C'\fR and \f(CW\*(C`my $message = shift;\*(C'\fR, for example. The
differences in the actual times recorded might be in the algorithm used
internally, or it could be due to system resource limitations or contention.
.PP
See also the DBIx::Profile which will profile database queries running
under the \f(CW\*(C`DBIx::*\*(C'\fR namespace.
.SS Devel::NYTProf
.IX Subsection "Devel::NYTProf"
\&\f(CW\*(C`Devel::NYTProf\*(C'\fR is the \fBnext generation\fR of Perl code profiler, fixing many
shortcomings in other tools and implementing many cool features. First of all it
can be used as either a \fIline\fR profiler, a \fIblock\fR or a \fIsubroutine\fR
profiler, all at once. It can also use sub-microsecond (100ns) resolution on
systems which provide \f(CWclock_gettime()\fR. It can be started and stopped even
by the program being profiled. It's a one-line entry to profile \f(CW\*(C`mod_perl\*(C'\fR
applications. It's written in \f(CW\*(C`c\*(C'\fR and is probably the fastest profiler
available for Perl. The list of coolness just goes on. Enough of that, let's
see how to it works \- just use the familiar \f(CW\*(C`\-d\*(C'\fR switch to plug it in and run
the code.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl \-d:NYTProf wordmatch \-f perl5db.pl
\&
\& wordmatch report for perl5db.pl:
\& lines in file: 9427
\& words in file: 50243
\& words with special (non\-word) characters: 20480
\& words with only special (non\-word) characters: 7790
\& words with only consonants: 4801
\& words with only capital letters: 1316
\& words with only vowels: 1701
.Ve
.PP
\&\f(CW\*(C`NYTProf\*(C'\fR will generate a report database into the file \fInytprof.out\fR by
default. Human readable reports can be generated from here by using the
supplied \f(CW\*(C`nytprofhtml\*(C'\fR (HTML output) and \f(CW\*(C`nytprofcsv\*(C'\fR (CSV output) programs.
We've used the Unix system \f(CW\*(C`html2text\*(C'\fR utility to convert the
\&\fInytprof/index.html\fR file for convenience here.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> html2text nytprof/index.html
\&
\& Performance Profile Index
\& For wordmatch
\& Run on Fri Sep 26 13:46:39 2008
\& Reported on Fri Sep 26 13:47:23 2008
\&
\& Top 15 Subroutines \-\- ordered by exclusive time
\& |Calls |P |F |Inclusive|Exclusive|Subroutine |
\& | | | |Time |Time | |
\& |251215|5 |1 |13.09263 |10.47692 |main:: |matches |
\& |260642|2 |1 |2.71199 |2.71199 |main:: |debug |
\& |1 |1 |1 |0.21404 |0.21404 |main:: |report |
\& |2 |2 |2 |0.00511 |0.00511 |XSLoader:: |load (xsub) |
\& |14 |14|7 |0.00304 |0.00298 |Exporter:: |import |
\& |3 |1 |1 |0.00265 |0.00254 |Exporter:: |as_heavy |
\& |10 |10|4 |0.00140 |0.00140 |vars:: |import |
\& |13 |13|1 |0.00129 |0.00109 |constant:: |import |
\& |1 |1 |1 |0.00360 |0.00096 |FileHandle:: |import |
\& |3 |3 |3 |0.00086 |0.00074 |warnings::register::|import |
\& |9 |3 |1 |0.00036 |0.00036 |strict:: |bits |
\& |13 |13|13|0.00032 |0.00029 |strict:: |import |
\& |2 |2 |2 |0.00020 |0.00020 |warnings:: |import |
\& |2 |1 |1 |0.00020 |0.00020 |Getopt::Long:: |ParseOptionSpec|
\& |7 |7 |6 |0.00043 |0.00020 |strict:: |unimport |
\&
\& For more information see the full list of 189 subroutines.
.Ve
.PP
The first part of the report already shows the critical information regarding
which subroutines are using the most time. The next gives some statistics
about the source files profiled.
.PP
.Vb 10
\& Source Code Files \-\- ordered by exclusive time then name
\& |Stmts |Exclusive|Avg. |Reports |Source File |
\& | |Time | | | |
\& |2699761|15.66654 |6e\-06 |line . block . sub|wordmatch |
\& |35 |0.02187 |0.00062|line . block . sub|IO/Handle.pm |
\& |274 |0.01525 |0.00006|line . block . sub|Getopt/Long.pm |
\& |20 |0.00585 |0.00029|line . block . sub|Fcntl.pm |
\& |128 |0.00340 |0.00003|line . block . sub|Exporter/Heavy.pm |
\& |42 |0.00332 |0.00008|line . block . sub|IO/File.pm |
\& |261 |0.00308 |0.00001|line . block . sub|Exporter.pm |
\& |323 |0.00248 |8e\-06 |line . block . sub|constant.pm |
\& |12 |0.00246 |0.00021|line . block . sub|File/Spec/Unix.pm |
\& |191 |0.00240 |0.00001|line . block . sub|vars.pm |
\& |77 |0.00201 |0.00003|line . block . sub|FileHandle.pm |
\& |12 |0.00198 |0.00016|line . block . sub|Carp.pm |
\& |14 |0.00175 |0.00013|line . block . sub|Symbol.pm |
\& |15 |0.00130 |0.00009|line . block . sub|IO.pm |
\& |22 |0.00120 |0.00005|line . block . sub|IO/Seekable.pm |
\& |198 |0.00085 |4e\-06 |line . block . sub|warnings/register.pm|
\& |114 |0.00080 |7e\-06 |line . block . sub|strict.pm |
\& |47 |0.00068 |0.00001|line . block . sub|warnings.pm |
\& |27 |0.00054 |0.00002|line . block . sub|overload.pm |
\& |9 |0.00047 |0.00005|line . block . sub|SelectSaver.pm |
\& |13 |0.00045 |0.00003|line . block . sub|File/Spec.pm |
\& |2701595|15.73869 | |Total |
\& |128647 |0.74946 | |Average |
\& | |0.00201 |0.00003|Median |
\& | |0.00121 |0.00003|Deviation |
\&
\& Report produced by the NYTProf 2.03 Perl profiler, developed by Tim Bunce and
\& Adam Kaplan.
.Ve
.PP
At this point, if you're using the \fIhtml\fR report, you can click through the
various links to bore down into each subroutine and each line of code. Because
we're using the text reporting here, and there's a whole directory full of
reports built for each source file, we'll just display a part of the
corresponding \fIwordmatch\-line.html\fR file, sufficient to give an idea of the
sort of output you can expect from this cool tool.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> html2text nytprof/wordmatch\-line.html
\&
\& Performance Profile \-\- \-block view\-.\-line view\-.\-sub view\-
\& For wordmatch
\& Run on Fri Sep 26 13:46:39 2008
\& Reported on Fri Sep 26 13:47:22 2008
\&
\& File wordmatch
\&
\& Subroutines \-\- ordered by exclusive time
\& |Calls |P|F|Inclusive|Exclusive|Subroutine |
\& | | | |Time |Time | |
\& |251215|5|1|13.09263 |10.47692 |main::|matches|
\& |260642|2|1|2.71199 |2.71199 |main::|debug |
\& |1 |1|1|0.21404 |0.21404 |main::|report |
\& |0 |0|0|0 |0 |main::|BEGIN |
\&
\&
\& |Line|Stmts.|Exclusive|Avg. |Code |
\& | | |Time | | |
\& |1 | | | |#!/usr/bin/perl |
\& |2 | | | | |
\& | | | | |use strict; |
\& |3 |3 |0.00086 |0.00029|# spent 0.00003s making 1 calls to strict:: |
\& | | | | |import |
\& | | | | |use warnings; |
\& |4 |3 |0.01563 |0.00521|# spent 0.00012s making 1 calls to warnings:: |
\& | | | | |import |
\& |5 | | | | |
\& |6 | | | |=head1 NAME |
\& |7 | | | | |
\& |8 | | | |filewords \- word analysis of input file |
\& <...snip...>
\& |62 |1 |0.00445 |0.00445|print report( %count ); |
\& | | | | |# spent 0.21404s making 1 calls to main::report|
\& |63 | | | | |
\& | | | | |# spent 23.56955s (10.47692+2.61571) within |
\& | | | | |main::matches which was called 251215 times, |
\& | | | | |avg 0.00005s/call: # 50243 times |
\& | | | | |(2.12134+0.51939s) at line 57 of wordmatch, avg|
\& | | | | |0.00005s/call # 50243 times (2.17735+0.54550s) |
\& |64 | | | |at line 56 of wordmatch, avg 0.00005s/call # |
\& | | | | |50243 times (2.10992+0.51797s) at line 58 of |
\& | | | | |wordmatch, avg 0.00005s/call # 50243 times |
\& | | | | |(2.12696+0.51598s) at line 55 of wordmatch, avg|
\& | | | | |0.00005s/call # 50243 times (1.94134+0.51687s) |
\& | | | | |at line 54 of wordmatch, avg 0.00005s/call |
\& | | | | |sub matches { |
\& <...snip...>
\& |102 | | | | |
\& | | | | |# spent 2.71199s within main::debug which was |
\& | | | | |called 260642 times, avg 0.00001s/call: # |
\& | | | | |251215 times (2.61571+0s) by main::matches at |
\& |103 | | | |line 74 of wordmatch, avg 0.00001s/call # 9427 |
\& | | | | |times (0.09628+0s) at line 50 of wordmatch, avg|
\& | | | | |0.00001s/call |
\& | | | | |sub debug { |
\& |104 |260642|0.58496 |2e\-06 |my $message = shift; |
\& |105 | | | | |
\& |106 |260642|1.09917 |4e\-06 |if ( $debug ) { |
\& |107 | | | |print STDERR "DBG: $message\en"; |
\& |108 | | | |} |
\& |109 | | | |} |
\& |110 | | | | |
\& |111 |1 |0.01501 |0.01501|exit 0; |
\& |112 | | | | |
.Ve
.PP
Oodles of very useful information in there \- this seems to be the way forward.
.PP
See also \f(CW\*(C`Devel::NYTProf::Apache\*(C'\fR which hooks \f(CW\*(C`Devel::NYTProf\*(C'\fR into
\&\f(CW\*(C`mod_perl\*(C'\fR.
.SH SORTING
.IX Header "SORTING"
Perl modules are not the only tools a performance analyst has at their
disposal, system tools like \f(CW\*(C`time\*(C'\fR should not be overlooked as the next
example shows, where we take a quick look at sorting. Many books, theses and
articles, have been written about efficient sorting algorithms, and this is not
the place to repeat such work, there's several good sorting modules which
deserve taking a look at too: \f(CW\*(C`Sort::Maker\*(C'\fR, \f(CW\*(C`Sort::Key\*(C'\fR spring to mind.
However, it's still possible to make some observations on certain Perl specific
interpretations on issues relating to sorting data sets and give an example or
two with regard to how sorting large data volumes can effect performance.
Firstly, an often overlooked point when sorting large amounts of data, one can
attempt to reduce the data set to be dealt with and in many cases \f(CWgrep()\fR can
be quite useful as a simple filter:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& @data = sort grep { /$filter/ } @incoming
.Ve
.PP
A command such as this can vastly reduce the volume of material to actually
sort through in the first place, and should not be too lightly disregarded
purely on the basis of its simplicity. The \f(CW\*(C`KISS\*(C'\fR principle is too often
overlooked \- the next example uses the simple system \f(CW\*(C`time\*(C'\fR utility to
demonstrate. Let's take a look at an actual example of sorting the contents of
a large file, an apache logfile would do. This one has over a quarter of a
million lines, is 50M in size, and a snippet of it looks like this:
.PP
# logfile
.PP
.Vb 10
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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"
\& 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"
\& 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"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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"
\& 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"
\& 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"
\& crawl1.cosmixcorp.com \- \- [08/Feb/2007:13:27:57 +0000] "GET /robots.txt HTTP/1.0" 200 179 "\-" "voyager/1.0"
\& crawl1.cosmixcorp.com \- \- [08/Feb/2007:13:28:25 +0000] "GET /links.html HTTP/1.0" 200 3413 "\-" "voyager/1.0"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& pop.compuscan.co.za \- \- [08/Feb/2007:14:10:43 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 3309 "\-" "www.clamav.net"
\& 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)"
\& 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)"
\& 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"
\& 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"
.Ve
.PP
The specific task here is to sort the 286,525 lines of this file by Response
Code, Query, Browser, Referring Url, and lastly Date. One solution might be to
use the following code, which iterates over the files given on the
command-line.
.PP
# sort-apache-log
.PP
.Vb 1
\& #!/usr/bin/perl \-n
\&
\& use v5.36;
\&
\& my @data;
\&
\& LINE:
\& while ( <> ) {
\& my $line = $_;
\& if (
\& $line =~ m/^(
\& ([\ew\e.\e\-]+) # client
\& \es*\-\es*\-\es*\e[
\& ([^]]+) # date
\& \e]\es*"\ew+\es*
\& (\eS+) # query
\& [^"]+"\es*
\& (\ed+) # status
\& \es+\eS+\es+"[^"]*"\es+"
\& ([^"]*) # browser
\& "
\& .*
\& )$/x
\& ) {
\& my @chunks = split(/ +/, $line);
\& my $ip = $1;
\& my $date = $2;
\& my $query = $3;
\& my $status = $4;
\& my $browser = $5;
\&
\& push(@data, [$ip, $date, $query, $status, $browser, $line]);
\& }
\& }
\&
\& my @sorted = sort {
\& $a\->[3] cmp $b\->[3]
\& ||
\& $a\->[2] cmp $b\->[2]
\& ||
\& $a\->[0] cmp $b\->[0]
\& ||
\& $a\->[1] cmp $b\->[1]
\& ||
\& $a\->[4] cmp $b\->[4]
\& } @data;
\&
\& foreach my $data ( @sorted ) {
\& print $data\->[5];
\& }
\&
\& exit 0;
.Ve
.PP
When running this program, redirect \f(CW\*(C`STDOUT\*(C'\fR so it is possible to check the
output is correct from following test runs and use the system \f(CW\*(C`time\*(C'\fR utility
to check the overall runtime.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> time ./sort\-apache\-log logfile > out\-sort
\&
\& real 0m17.371s
\& user 0m15.757s
\& sys 0m0.592s
.Ve
.PP
The program took just over 17 wallclock seconds to run. Note the different
values \f(CW\*(C`time\*(C'\fR outputs, it's important to always use the same one, and to not
confuse what each one means.
.IP "Elapsed Real Time" 4
.IX Item "Elapsed Real Time"
The overall, or wallclock, time between when \f(CW\*(C`time\*(C'\fR was called, and when it
terminates. The elapsed time includes both user and system times, and time
spent waiting for other users and processes on the system. Inevitably, this is
the most approximate of the measurements given.
.IP "User CPU Time" 4
.IX Item "User CPU Time"
The user time is the amount of time the entire process spent on behalf of the
user on this system executing this program.
.IP "System CPU Time" 4
.IX Item "System CPU Time"
The system time is the amount of time the kernel itself spent executing
routines, or system calls, on behalf of this process user.
.PP
Running this same process as a \f(CW\*(C`Schwarzian Transform\*(C'\fR it is possible to
eliminate the input and output arrays for storing all the data, and work on the
input directly as it arrives too. Otherwise, the code looks fairly similar:
.PP
# sort-apache-log-schwarzian
.PP
.Vb 1
\& #!/usr/bin/perl \-n
\&
\& use v5.36;
\&
\& print
\&
\& map $_\->[0] =>
\&
\& sort {
\& $a\->[4] cmp $b\->[4]
\& ||
\& $a\->[3] cmp $b\->[3]
\& ||
\& $a\->[1] cmp $b\->[1]
\& ||
\& $a\->[2] cmp $b\->[2]
\& ||
\& $a\->[5] cmp $b\->[5]
\& }
\& map [ $_, m/^(
\& ([\ew\e.\e\-]+) # client
\& \es*\-\es*\-\es*\e[
\& ([^]]+) # date
\& \e]\es*"\ew+\es*
\& (\eS+) # query
\& [^"]+"\es*
\& (\ed+) # status
\& \es+\eS+\es+"[^"]*"\es+"
\& ([^"]*) # browser
\& "
\& .*
\& )$/xo ]
\&
\& => <>;
\&
\& exit 0;
.Ve
.PP
Run the new code against the same logfile, as above, to check the new time.
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> time ./sort\-apache\-log\-schwarzian logfile > out\-schwarz
\&
\& real 0m9.664s
\& user 0m8.873s
\& sys 0m0.704s
.Ve
.PP
The time has been cut in half, which is a respectable speed improvement by any
standard. Naturally, it is important to check the output is consistent with
the first program run, this is where the Unix system \f(CW\*(C`cksum\*(C'\fR utility comes in.
.PP
.Vb 3
\& $> cksum out\-sort out\-schwarz
\& 3044173777 52029194 out\-sort
\& 3044173777 52029194 out\-schwarz
.Ve
.PP
BTW. Beware too of pressure from managers who see you speed a program up by 50%
of the runtime once, only to get a request one month later to do the same again
(true story) \- you'll just have to point out you're only human, even if you are a
Perl programmer, and you'll see what you can do...
.SH LOGGING
.IX Header "LOGGING"
An essential part of any good development process is appropriate error handling
with appropriately informative messages, however there exists a school of
thought which suggests that log files should be \fIchatty\fR, as if the chain of
unbroken output somehow ensures the survival of the program. If speed is in
any way an issue, this approach is wrong.
.PP
A common sight is code which looks something like this:
.PP
.Vb 2
\& logger\->debug( "A logging message via process\-id: $$ INC: "
\& . Dumper(\e%INC) )
.Ve
.PP
The problem is that this code will always be parsed and executed, even when the
debug level set in the logging configuration file is zero. Once the \fBdebug()\fR
subroutine has been entered, and the internal \f(CW$debug\fR variable confirmed to
be zero, for example, the message which has been sent in will be discarded and
the program will continue. In the example given though, the \f(CW\*(C`\e%INC\*(C'\fR hash will
already have been dumped, and the message string constructed, all of which work
could be bypassed by a debug variable at the statement level, like this:
.PP
.Vb 2
\& logger\->debug( "A logging message via process\-id: $$ INC: "
\& . Dumper(\e%INC) ) if $DEBUG;
.Ve
.PP
This effect can be demonstrated by setting up a test script with both forms,
including a \f(CWdebug()\fR subroutine to emulate typical \f(CWlogger()\fR functionality.
.PP
# ifdebug
.PP
.Vb 1
\& #!/usr/bin/perl
\&
\& use v5.36;
\&
\& use Benchmark;
\& use Data::Dumper;
\& my $DEBUG = 0;
\&
\& sub debug {
\& my $msg = shift;
\&
\& if ( $DEBUG ) {
\& print "DEBUG: $msg\en";
\& }
\& };
\&
\& timethese(100000, {
\& \*(Aqdebug\*(Aq => sub {
\& debug( "A $0 logging message via process\-id: $$" . Dumper(\e%INC) )
\& },
\& \*(Aqifdebug\*(Aq => sub {
\& debug( "A $0 logging message via process\-id: $$" . Dumper(\e%INC) ) if $DEBUG
\& },
\& });
.Ve
.PP
Let's see what \f(CW\*(C`Benchmark\*(C'\fR makes of this:
.PP
.Vb 5
\& $> perl ifdebug
\& Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of constant, sub...
\& ifdebug: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.01 CPU) @ 10000000.00/s (n=100000)
\& (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
\& debug: 14 wallclock secs (13.18 usr + 0.04 sys = 13.22 CPU) @ 7564.30/s (n=100000)
.Ve
.PP
In the one case the code, which does exactly the same thing as far as
outputting any debugging information is concerned, in other words nothing,
takes 14 seconds, and in the other case the code takes one hundredth of a
second. Looks fairly definitive. Use a \f(CW$DEBUG\fR variable BEFORE you call the
subroutine, rather than relying on the smart functionality inside it.
.SS "Logging if DEBUG (constant)"
.IX Subsection "Logging if DEBUG (constant)"
It's possible to take the previous idea a little further, by using a compile
time \f(CW\*(C`DEBUG\*(C'\fR constant.
.PP
# ifdebug-constant
.PP
.Vb 1
\& #!/usr/bin/perl
\&
\& use v5.36;
\&
\& use Benchmark;
\& use Data::Dumper;
\& use constant
\& DEBUG => 0
\& ;
\&
\& sub debug {
\& if ( DEBUG ) {
\& my $msg = shift;
\& print "DEBUG: $msg\en";
\& }
\& };
\&
\& timethese(100000, {
\& \*(Aqdebug\*(Aq => sub {
\& debug( "A $0 logging message via process\-id: $$" . Dumper(\e%INC) )
\& },
\& \*(Aqconstant\*(Aq => sub {
\& debug( "A $0 logging message via process\-id: $$" . Dumper(\e%INC) ) if DEBUG
\& },
\& });
.Ve
.PP
Running this program produces the following output:
.PP
.Vb 5
\& $> perl ifdebug\-constant
\& Benchmark: timing 100000 iterations of constant, sub...
\& constant: 0 wallclock secs (\-0.00 usr + 0.00 sys = \-0.00 CPU) @ \-7205759403792793600000.00/s (n=100000)
\& (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count)
\& sub: 14 wallclock secs (13.09 usr + 0.00 sys = 13.09 CPU) @ 7639.42/s (n=100000)
.Ve
.PP
The \f(CW\*(C`DEBUG\*(C'\fR constant wipes the floor with even the \f(CW$debug\fR variable,
clocking in at minus zero seconds, and generates a "warning: too few iterations
for a reliable count" message into the bargain. To see what is really going
on, and why we had too few iterations when we thought we asked for 100000, we
can use the very useful \f(CW\*(C`B::Deparse\*(C'\fR to inspect the new code:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl \-MO=Deparse ifdebug\-constant
\&
\& use Benchmark;
\& use Data::Dumper;
\& use constant (\*(AqDEBUG\*(Aq, 0);
\& sub debug {
\& use warnings;
\& use strict \*(Aqrefs\*(Aq;
\& 0;
\& }
\& use warnings;
\& use strict \*(Aqrefs\*(Aq;
\& timethese(100000, {\*(Aqsub\*(Aq, sub {
\& debug "A $0 logging message via process\-id: $$" . Dumper(\e%INC);
\& }
\& , \*(Aqconstant\*(Aq, sub {
\& 0;
\& }
\& });
\& ifdebug\-constant syntax OK
.Ve
.PP
The output shows the \fBconstant()\fR subroutine we're testing being replaced with
the value of the \f(CW\*(C`DEBUG\*(C'\fR constant: zero. The line to be tested has been
completely optimized away, and you can't get much more efficient than that.
.SH POSTSCRIPT
.IX Header "POSTSCRIPT"
This document has provided several way to go about identifying hot-spots, and
checking whether any modifications have improved the runtime of the code.
.PP
As a final thought, remember that it's not (at the time of writing) possible to
produce a useful program which will run in zero or negative time and this basic
principle can be written as: \fIuseful programs are slow\fR by their very
definition. It is of course possible to write a nearly instantaneous program,
but it's not going to do very much, here's a very efficient one:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& $> perl \-e 0
.Ve
.PP
Optimizing that any further is a job for \f(CW\*(C`p5p\*(C'\fR.
.SH "SEE ALSO"
.IX Header "SEE ALSO"
Further reading can be found using the modules and links below.
.SS PERLDOCS
.IX Subsection "PERLDOCS"
For example: \f(CW\*(C`perldoc \-f sort\*(C'\fR.
.PP
perlfaq4.
.PP
perlfork, perlfunc, perlretut, perlthrtut.
.PP
threads.
.SS "MAN PAGES"
.IX Subsection "MAN PAGES"
\&\f(CW\*(C`time\*(C'\fR.
.SS MODULES
.IX Subsection "MODULES"
It's not possible to individually showcase all the performance related code for
Perl here, naturally, but here's a short list of modules from the CPAN which
deserve further attention.
.PP
.Vb 10
\& Apache::DProf
\& Apache::SmallProf
\& Benchmark
\& DBIx::Profile
\& Devel::AutoProfiler
\& Devel::DProf
\& Devel::DProfLB
\& Devel::FastProf
\& Devel::GraphVizProf
\& Devel::NYTProf
\& Devel::NYTProf::Apache
\& Devel::Profiler
\& Devel::Profile
\& Devel::Profit
\& Devel::SmallProf
\& Devel::WxProf
\& POE::Devel::Profiler
\& Sort::Key
\& Sort::Maker
.Ve
.SS URLS
.IX Subsection "URLS"
Very useful online reference material:
.PP
.Vb 1
\& https://web.archive.org/web/20120515021937/http://www.ccl4.org/~nick/P/Fast_Enough/
\&
\& https://web.archive.org/web/20050706081718/http://www\-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l\-optperl.html
\&
\& https://perlbuzz.com/2007/11/14/bind_output_variables_in_dbi_for_speed_and_safety/
\&
\& http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_analysis
\&
\& http://apache.perl.org/docs/1.0/guide/performance.html
\&
\& http://perlgolf.sourceforge.net/
\&
\& http://www.sysarch.com/Perl/sort_paper.html
.Ve
.SH AUTHOR
.IX Header "AUTHOR"
Richard Foley <richard.foley@rfi.net> Copyright (c) 2008
|