From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-09-14T21:56:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Optimizing a single slow method

------=_NextPart_000_0118_01C5B93C.36D7B610
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hugh Sasse wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> Hugh Sasse wrote:
>>>> see an associated block, it doesn't handle the cleanup for you.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's right.  I wonder if it is worth the price in garbage
>>> collection to explicitly close in this case?   Probably not given
>>> maintenance costs.
>>
>> The closing isn't that costly.
>
> The closing would allow you to avoid that block with the |io| in it.
> That cost, the cost of the object, is what I meant.

What object exactly do you mean?  The IO instance is there anyway so you
probably are referring to the overhead incurred by the block.  I don't
think that this is significant.

14:50:33 [ruby]: ruby block-overhead.rb
1000000
                          user     system      total        real
block                 3.563000   0.016000   3.579000 (  3.569000)
no block              1.859000   0.000000   1.859000 (  1.867000)

That's 1.704 seconds so 1.7 micro seconds per invocation.  Not really much
compared to the overhead of opening the file and all the other work.

Kind regards

    robert

------=_NextPart_000_0118_01C5B93C.36D7B610
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="block-overhead.rb"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="block-overhead.rb"

=0A=
require 'benchmark'=0A=
=0A=
REP =3D 1_000_000=0A=
=0A=
p REP=0A=
=0A=
def foo=0A=
  if block_given?=0A=
    yield 0=0A=
  else=0A=
    0=0A=
  end=0A=
end=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Benchmark.bm(20) do |bb|=0A=
  bb.report "block" do=0A=
     REP.times { foo() {|i| i + 1 } }=0A=
  end=0A=
=0A=
  bb.report "no block" do=0A=
     REP.times { foo() + 1 }=0A=
  end=0A=
end=0A=

------=_NextPart_000_0118_01C5B93C.36D7B610--