Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks DiBona
We don't bite newbies here... much
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Idiomatic optimizations

by thelenm (Vicar)
on Apr 29, 2002 at 18:00 UTC ( #162881=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Idiomatic optimizations

Ever since I read in Mastering Regular Expressions that perl makes a copy of the base string when doing a case-insensitive match, I've tried to use character classes instead of /i.

... Before submitting this post, though, I decided to actually benchmark some variations to see whether character classes were faster. To my surprise, it turns out that /i is about 50% faster in the test I used:

use strict; use Benchmark qw(cmpthese); my $foo = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"x500; my $re = "[Aa][Bb][Cc]"; cmpthese(1000000, { 'i' => sub { $foo =~ /abc/ig }, 'chars' => sub { $foo =~ /[Aa][Bb][Cc]/og }, 'charvar' => sub { $foo =~ /$re/og }, });
yielding these results on my machine:
Benchmark: timing 1000000 iterations of chars, charvar, i... chars: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.97 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.97 CPU) @ 50 +7614.21/s (n=1000000) charvar: 3 wallclock secs ( 2.04 usr + -0.01 sys = 2.03 CPU) @ 49 +2610.84/s (n=1000000) i: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.31 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.31 CPU) @ 76 +3358.78/s (n=1000000) Rate charvar chars i charvar 492611/s -- -3% -35% chars 507614/s 3% -- -34% i 763359/s 55% 50% --
Results are similar for strings of various lengths. So was Mastering Regular Expressions incorrect, or has the problem just been fixed since it was written?


Comment on Re: Idiomatic optimizations
Select or Download Code
Re: Re: Idiomatic optimizations
by samtregar (Abbot) on Apr 30, 2002 at 07:59 UTC
    The problem with //i isn't (wasn't?) that it's slower on small strings. It's that it uses twice the memory as an equivalent character class. And when you start matching against huge strings that can really make a difference. Try your example against a 50MB string and I think you'll see what I mean. If not you can justly castigate me for being too lazy to test my own assertions.

    Eagerly awaiting the second edition,
    -sam

      Always pass referances not data structures hence \ operator is an optimistaion sub(\@array) instead of sub(@array)
      Only use what you need from modules use CGI qw(:standard);
      Also I like shortcut operators
      my $i ||=0 ; my $i =shift || 0;
      also I like ? operator instead of if's
      $i?$i=1:$i=0;
      is !~ an optimisation over just negating the result of =~, I dunno but I think !~ looks better
        Just a few remarks (though i've got a sneaking suspicion i'm correcting typos here):

        > my $i ||=0 ;

        here $i will always turn out to be 0 (because of the my operator), so my $i=0; is more efficient.

        > $i?$i=1:$i=0;
        How about $i=$i?1:0; - that's also a bit more readable. (at least to my eyes).

        Joost.

        Don't forget that ?: can get dangerous, not unlike juggling running chainsaws. It's a great show, but is liable to injure yourself something fierce:
        $foo = $a? $b? $c : $d? $e : $f : $g : $h;
        Sometimes an if is more verbose, but undeniably precise.

        Instead of getting carried away with ?:, you can sometimes compact it using the regular logical operators || and &&. It really depends on what you're working with.

        $i?$i=1:$i=0;

        Puh-lease, use some whitespace! Here are some alternatives:

        $i ? $i = 1 : $i = 0; $i = $i ? 1 : 0; $i = !!$i || 0; $foo = $foo ? 1 : 0; # Single-letter variable names: # easy to type, hard to read

        Always pass referances not data structures

        Most references are the root of data structures, so I think you meant "Always pass references instead of flattened hashes or lists". Note that you can't use this if the sub in question doesn't expect it.

        - Yes, I reinvent wheels.
        - Spam: Visit eurotraQ.
        

      Nah, no castigation here. When I whipped up my test, I had thought that the alphabet x 500 was a pretty big string, but now that I'm thinking clearly that's not very big at all.

      To test out a really big string, I replicated Romeo and Juliet 500 times, read the whole thing into a string, then ran the same regular expressions almost the same regular expressions. I removed /o from the 'chars' sub, which actually made it a little faster. The string was about 70 MB. Here is my new test code:

      use strict; use Benchmark qw(cmpthese); local $/ = undef; open IN, "romeo-and-juliet-500-times.txt"; my $text = <IN>; close IN; # Ten iterations is enough with a 70 MB string! cmpthese(10, { 'i' => sub { $text =~ /abc/ig }, 'chars' => sub { $text =~ /[Aa][Bb][Cc]/g }, });
      To my surprise (again!), the /i version ran in about 1/3 the time as the character-class version. Here is the output on my machine:
      Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of chars, i... chars: 40 wallclock secs (38.37 usr + 0.04 sys = 38.41 CPU) @ 0 +.26/s (n=10) i: 12 wallclock secs (11.43 usr + 0.01 sys = 11.44 CPU) @ 0 +.87/s (n=10) s/iter chars i chars 3.84 -- -70% i 1.14 236% --
      I'm amazed. Am I not testing the right thing? Or has /i really been cleaned up in recent versions of Perl? I'm running 5.6.1.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://162881]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-04-18 23:53 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (473 votes), past polls