Re: Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

Re: Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

Not really.  What you need to know is that Emacs's regexp engine is
based on backtracking, so things like .*\\(.*\\).* is insanely
inefficient and will make you think Emacs is frozen.

Generally, you'll prefer to use regexps that don't require backtracking.
E.g. [^(\n]*( works much better than .*( since when encountering an open
parenthesis, the matcher will know for sure that it has to leave the *
loop, rather than having to try both cases in sequence.


        Stefan

Re: Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

[Oleksandr Gavenko]

On 2011-01-18 20:29, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?
>
> Not really.  What you need to know is that Emacs's regexp engine is
> based on backtracking, so things like .*\\(.*\\).* is insanely
> inefficient and will make you think Emacs is frozen.
>
Thanks for answer!

How about if \\(.*\\) used to enclose a set of `\|'
alternatives or for referencing in font-lock expressions?

> Generally, you'll prefer to use regexps that don't require backtracking.
> E.g. [^(\n]*( works much better than .*( since when encountering an open
> parenthesis, the matcher will know for sure that it has to leave the *
> loop, rather than having to try both cases in sequence.
>
I get basic understand but read more about backtracking
in regex engine some later. Thanks.

-- 
Best regards!

Re: Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Not really.  What you need to know is that Emacs's regexp engine is
>> based on backtracking, so things like .*\\(.*\\).* is insanely
>> inefficient and will make you think Emacs is frozen.
> How about if \\(.*\\) used to enclose a set of `\|'
> alternatives or for referencing in font-lock expressions?

The \(..\) subgroups are cheap, so I wouldn't worry about them
w.r.t performance.  If you really care about their performance impact,
you can use the non-numbered (aka "shy") groups which are written
\(?:...\), but I doubt you'd be able to measure a difference.


        Stefan

Re: Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

[Tim X]

Oleksandr Gavenko <gavenko@bifit.com.ua> writes:

> Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?
>
> Which construction use to get more performance?
>
>

None that I'm aware of. 

With respect to performance, just follow the golden rule and make sure
your regexp is anchored in some way. 

Many regexp implementations use a backtrackin form of regexp. If you
don't anchor your regexp in some way, the amount of work it does in
trying to find a match before giving up can grow very fast and can even
give the impression the system is locked up. 

Common anchoring techniques include using ^ and $ to anchor your regexp
to the start/end of a line and avoiding regexp with 'match everything'
type wildcards at the start and end. If you know your regexp needs to
match a specific sequence, include it and be as specific as possible.
Use the correct meta characters such as ?, *, + etc. Take advantage of
shy groups and non-greedy forms when they make sense. In general, be as
precise as you can.

Tim

-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au

Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

[Oleksandr Gavenko]

Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

Which construction use to get more performance?

Re: Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?

[Deniz Dogan]

2011/1/18 Oleksandr Gavenko <gavenko@bifit.com.ua>:
> Any performance comparison/guide of/for Emacs regex?
>
> Which construction use to get more performance?
>

Try regexp-opt: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/RegexpOpt

-- 
Deniz Dogan