Re^6: Converting multiple spaces to nbsp

Actually, I'd probably go with my own variant (see above), which happens to be faster than either of these.

Yours isn't the fastest for me, although I've added use warnings, use strict; and forced a scalar context unto the substitution:

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;

use Benchmark qw(cmpthese);

my $test_text = q|Wow, that was quick!<br/>
Two points:<br/>
1) I only  want space, not tabs or new lines - so shouldn't the \s be 
+  replaced with " "? <br/>
2) Is there  a difference between inkgmi's and GrandFather's entry? <b
+r/>
PS I thought executed regexs are experimental (so says the man page) -
+ is there a problem   with them?<br/>
|;
[download]

cmpthese(-3, {
    GrandFather => sub {
       local $_ = $test_text;
       scalar s/ ( +)/" " . ("&nbsp;" x length ($1))/ge
    },

    ikegami => sub {
       local $_ = $test_text;
       scalar s/(?<= )( +)/'&nbsp;' x length($1)/eg
    },

    Smylers => sub {
       local $_ = $test_text;
       scalar s/(?<= )( )/&nbsp;/g
    },
});

__END__
               Rate     ikegami     Smylers GrandFather
ikegami     22180/s          --        -25%        -31%
Smylers     29772/s         34%          --         -8%
GrandFather 32268/s         45%          8%          --
[download]

Comment on Re^6: Converting multiple spaces to nbsp Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Converting multiple spaces to nbsp by Smylers (Pilgrim) on Jun 17, 2005 at 16:55 UTC
Yours isn't the fastest for me, I can reproduce your results with your benchmark. So I compared it with mine and played 'spot the difference'. It seems that the significant difference was in the source text, which I'd copied from the original without thinking about it very much. As it happens, the way I'd copied the code and indented it in my editor I had `$text_text` wrapped on to 7 lines, and with a couple of spaces indenting the 2nd and subsequent lines. This gives several more places in the text where substitutions are required. So for comparison, with your benchmark above I get: `Rate ikegami Smylers GrandFather ikegami 17125/s -- -28% -34% Smylers 23635/s 38% -- -9% GrandFather 25951/s 52% 10% --` [download] Putting 2 spaces at the beginning of the lines gives: `Rate ikegami GrandFather Smylers ikegami 10990/s -- -20% -37% GrandFather 13676/s 24% -- -22% Smylers 17494/s 59% 28% --` [download] So vastly increasing the number of places where substitutions are required, by running `s/e/e e/g` over the source text, gives: `ikegami 3615/s -- -3% -50% GrandFather 3711/s 3% -- -48% Smylers 7181/s 99% 94% --` [download] But, reverting those extra double-spaces back out of the source text and instead increasing its indentation to 10 spaces at the beginning of each line gives these results: `Rate Smylers ikegami GrandFather Smylers 6692/s -- -33% -43% ikegami 9917/s 48% -- -16% GrandFather 11769/s 76% 19% --` [download] Note that for the `/e`-based solutions there are the same number of places that need substitutions as when the indent was just by 2 characters, but for my solution the number of substitutions has greatly increased, cos each one is just of a single character. It seems reasonable that a substitution using `/e` takes longer than one with out, so avoiding using `/e` has greater benefit the more substitutions that are required. But yours and GrandFather's methods which replace a sequence of spaces in one go have greater benefit the longer the sequences of spaces are. So which method is faster depends on whether you expect there to be many places that need substituting, and whether you expect them only to be a couple of spaces long or much longer. Does that make sense? Smylers	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: Converting multiple spaces to nbsp
by Smylers (Pilgrim) on Jun 17, 2005 at 16:55 UTC

Yours isn't the fastest for me,

I can reproduce your results with your benchmark. So I compared it with mine and played 'spot the difference'. It seems that the significant difference was in the source text, which I'd copied from the original without thinking about it very much.

As it happens, the way I'd copied the code and indented it in my editor I had $text_text wrapped on to 7 lines, and with a couple of spaces indenting the 2nd and subsequent lines. This gives several more places in the text where substitutions are required.

So for comparison, with your benchmark above I get:

               Rate     ikegami     Smylers GrandFather
ikegami     17125/s          --        -28%        -34%
Smylers     23635/s         38%          --         -9%
GrandFather 25951/s         52%         10%          --
[download]

Putting 2 spaces at the beginning of the lines gives:

               Rate     ikegami GrandFather     Smylers
ikegami     10990/s          --        -20%        -37%
GrandFather 13676/s         24%          --        -22%
Smylers     17494/s         59%         28%          --
[download]

So vastly increasing the number of places where substitutions are required, by running s/e/e e/g over the source text, gives:

ikegami     3615/s          --         -3%        -50%
GrandFather 3711/s          3%          --        -48%
Smylers     7181/s         99%         94%          --
[download]

But, reverting those extra double-spaces back out of the source text and instead increasing its indentation to 10 spaces at the beginning of each line gives these results:

               Rate     Smylers     ikegami GrandFather
Smylers      6692/s          --        -33%        -43%
ikegami      9917/s         48%          --        -16%
GrandFather 11769/s         76%         19%          --
[download]

Note that for the /e-based solutions there are the same number of places that need substitutions as when the indent was just by 2 characters, but for my solution the number of substitutions has greatly increased, cos each one is just of a single character.

It seems reasonable that a substitution using /e takes longer than one with out, so avoiding using /e has greater benefit the more substitutions that are required. But yours and GrandFather's methods which replace a sequence of spaces in one go have greater benefit the longer the sequences of spaces are.

So which method is faster depends on whether you expect there to be many places that need substituting, and whether you expect them only to be a couple of spaces long or much longer.

Does that make sense?

Smylers

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]