Is this comparison valid?

[gamo]

I have installed 5.18, and think that if hashes are randomized, maybe
a simple hash could substitute the shuffle operations, but I'm not sure
if the comparison is valid.

#!/usr/local/bin/perl -w

use List::Util qw(shuffle);
use Benchmark qwall);

for (1..100_000){
$list[$_] = $_;
$hash{$_} = $_;
}

cmpthese(-3, {
'shuffle' => sub { @aleat=shuffle(@list); },
'newhash' => sub { @aleat=values(%hash); },
});
timethese(-3, {
'shuffle' => sub { @aleat=shuffle(@list); },
'newhash' => sub { @aleat=values(%hash); },
});




__END__

 

[Jürgen Exner]

I have installed 5.18, and think that if hashes are randomized,

Where did you read that hashes are randomized? AFAIK the sequence is
deterministic although of no practical value (and therefore may appear
to be randomized to the casual observer).

jue

 

[gamo]

Where did you read that hashes are randomized? AFAIK the sequence is
deterministic although of no practical value (and therefore may appear
to be randomized to the casual observer).

jue
-------------------

in perldelta

it says:

Hash randomization

The seed used by Perl's hash function is now random. This means that
the order which keys/values will be returned from functions like
"keys()", "values()", and "each()" will differ from run to run.

 

[Jürgen Exner]

Where did you read that hashes are randomized? AFAIK the sequence is
deterministic although of no practical value (and therefore may appear
to be randomized to the casual observer).

jue
-------------------

in perldelta

it says:

Hash randomization

The seed used by Perl's hash function is now random. This means that
the order which keys/values will be returned from functions like
"keys()", "values()", and "each()" will differ from run to run.

Interesting.

Thanks

jue