in reply to Re^3: Surprisingly poor regex performance
in thread Surprisingly poor regex performance

You're right of course; I shouldn't have said meant the same as; I meant would have the same effect as.

Still, I think it's accurate to say that ^ means very nearly the same as your example: (?:\A|\n), so it's still quite surprising to me that yours is so much faster.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Surprisingly poor regex performance
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Dec 14, 2004 at 13:53 UTC
    I'm actually really curious about that, as well. I /msg'ed japhy asking if he'd pop in and help us out. My benchmarking shows a 15x speedup using (?:\A|\n) over using ^ with the /m modifier.

    Oh - taking away the /m modifier when using (?:\A|\n) results in potentially something like a 1% speedup. I guess randomly adding modifiers is bad. :-)

    Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
    Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
    Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
    Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      How does it compare to (?:\A|(?<=\n)) ? Isn't that the accurate representation of /^.../m ? You could also try (?<![^\n]) which seems somehow even simpler.

      - tye        

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        Using the benchmarking code above ... 
        timethese( 100, {
 'better' => sub {
     while ($mmap =~ m/(?:\A|\n)(.*$pat.*\n)/omg) {
     }
 },
 'tye1' => sub {
     while ($mmap =~ m/(?:\A|(?<=\n))(.*$pat.*\n)/omg) {
     }
 },
 'tye2' => sub {
     while ($mmap =~ m/(?:\A|(?<![^\n]))(.*$pat.*\n)/omg) {
     }
 },
})
__END__
Benchmark: timing 100 iterations of better, tye1, tye2...
    better: 11 wallclock secs (10.61 usr +  0.00 sys = 10.61 CPU) @  9
+.43/s (n=100)
      tye1: 13 wallclock secs (12.37 usr +  0.00 sys = 12.37 CPU) @  8
+.08/s (n=100)
      tye2: 14 wallclock secs (14.16 usr +  0.00 sys = 14.16 CPU) @  7
+.06/s (n=100)

        [download]

        I have no idea how to figure out why these numbers are the way they are. The only thing I can think of is that the lookaround assertion takes more time than the actual character check. *shrugs*

        Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
        Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
        Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
        Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom