On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 11:32 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> So I still don't understand why PCRE should be 40 times faster than PosixRE.
> Surely this can't be just due to differences in the underlying C library?
Read Ville's papers. Includes comparisons of GNU regex
and PCRE.
--
John Skaller
F
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
simonmarhaskell:
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Your question has prompted me to go back into my PosixRE wrapping code
and compare it to the PCRE code. I have made some changes which ought
to enhance the performance of the PosixRE code. Let us see the new
bechmarks on 1
simonmarhaskell:
> Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
>
> >Your question has prompted me to go back into my PosixRE wrapping code
> >and compare it to the PCRE code. I have made some changes which ought
> >to enhance the performance of the PosixRE code. Let us see the new
> >bechmarks on 10^6 bytes:
> >
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Your question has prompted me to go back into my PosixRE wrapping code
and compare it to the PCRE code. I have made some changes which ought
to enhance the performance of the PosixRE code. Let us see the new
bechmarks on 10^6 bytes:
PosixRE
(102363,["bcdcd","cdc"],["
Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09 August 2006 15:14, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
For 10^5 characters on String:
PCRE 0.077s
DFA0.131s
TRE0.206s
PosixRE0.445s
Parsec 0.825s
Old Posix 43.760s (Text.Regex using splitRegex)
Old Text.Regex took 43.76 seconds on 10^5 characters to
On 09 August 2006 15:14, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
> For 10^5 characters on String:
> PCRE 0.077s
> DFA0.131s
> TRE0.206s
> PosixRE0.445s
> Parsec 0.825s
> Old Posix 43.760s (Text.Regex using splitRegex)
>
> Old Text.Regex took 43.76 seconds on 10^5 characters to do a
skaller wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 20:38 +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
skaller wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice to use Ville Laurikari's TRE
package instead of PCRE?
[It is also Posix compliant and drop in replacement for
gnu regex .. as well as supporting nice extensions]
It is possible to a
