> `match?' is Ruby 2.4+, which is probably too big a jump since
> we're still on Ruby 1.9.3 at the moment...
That's what I figured.
> String comparison as in `==' and `!='? Would be interested to know
> where and what improvements can be had.
One place that jumped to mind when I saw it is http_response_write.
But there are many other places where Regexp are used to do case
insensitive comparisons.
```
require 'benchmark/ips'
def http_response_write(headers)
headers.each do |key, value|
case key
when %r{\A(?:Date|Connection)\z}i
next
end
end
end
def http_response_write_upcase(headers)
headers.each do |key, value|
case key.upcase
when 'DATE'.freeze, 'CONNECTION'.freeze
next
end
end
end
def http_response_write_casecmp(headers)
headers.each do |key, value|
case key
when key.casecmp?('Date'.freeze) || key.casecmp?('Connection'.freeze)
next
end
end
end
HEADERS = {
'Foo' => 'bar',
'Date' => 'plop',
'User-Agent' => 'blah',
}
Benchmark.ips do |x|
x.report('original') { http_response_write(HEADERS) }
x.report('upcase') { http_response_write_upcase(HEADERS) }
x.report('casecmp?') { http_response_write_casecmp(HEADERS) }
x.compare!
end
```
```
Warming up --------------------------------------
original 82.066k i/100ms
upcase 177.429k i/100ms
casecmp? 96.288k i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
original 831.610k (± 1.6%) i/s - 4.185M in 5.034146s
upcase 1.770M (± 1.6%) i/s - 8.871M in 5.013796s
casecmp? 979.618k (± 1.3%) i/s - 4.911M in 5.013678s
Comparison:
upcase: 1769883.2 i/s
casecmp?: 979618.3 i/s - 1.81x (± 0.00) slower
original: 831610.2 i/s - 2.13x (± 0.00) slower
```
Similarly, that method use `value =~ /\n/` which could be replaced
favorably for `value.include?("\n".freeze)`
```
VAL = "foobar"
Benchmark.ips do |x|
x.report('=~') { VAL =~ /\n/ }
x.report('include?') { VAL.include?("\n".freeze) }
x.compare!
end
```
```
Warming up --------------------------------------
=~ 409.096k i/100ms
include? 1.322M i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
=~ 4.083M (± 2.1%) i/s - 20.455M in 5.011539s
include? 13.053M (± 1.5%) i/s - 66.125M in 5.067097s
Comparison:
include?: 13052859.2 i/s
=~: 4083401.3 i/s - 3.20x (± 0.00) slower
```
> Ruby just seems hopeless performance-wise
Well, the gap between 1.9.3 and 2.5+ is pretty big performance-wise.
