From: Xavier Leroy <xleroy@pauillac.inria.fr>
To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Performance problem
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:57:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030515095751.A5384@pauillac.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030514224130.GC27927@swordfish>; from mgushee@havenrock.com on Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:41:31PM -0600
> > >that occur to me are an output buffering problem or some delay in
> > >interacting with the X display, but I'm not sure how to solve either of
> > >those. And maybe it's something else entirely. Can anyone explain my
> > >terrible results?
> >
> > My guess (without profiling) is that most of the time is being spent
> > doing regular expression matching.
Profiling (ocamlopt -p) confirms this guess: 99.9% of the time is
spent in the regexp matching engine...
> > Regular expressions can be much slower than you might expect for
> > non-trivial cases. The expression in your program looks particularly
> > nasty, since there are a lot of ambiguous cases (whether '-' should
> > match '.*' or '-' depends on everything that follows).
Indeed. This kind of regexp is among the worst cases for a greedy
backtracking regexp matcher like that of Str. As someone else
suggested, making the regexp deterministic (replace .*- with [^-]*-)
helps immensely.
> > 1) you regexp string is not properly escaped, all the "\(" and "\)"
> > should be "\\(" and "\\)".
>
> Okay, I've run into that with other languages. But I didn't know you had
> to do that in OCaml. Is that documented anywhere?
In the syntax for strings, yes: a literal \ should be written \\,
hence the \( regexp construct should be written \\( in a string literal.
Perhaps this should be recalled in the docs for Str.regexp. At any rate,
the compiler will nicely warn you.
> By the way, why doesn't the compiler just reject regexes with single
> backslashes? What is the point of issuing warnings and then accepting
> the incorrect syntax?
Backward compatibility, mostly. But this is the kind of warning that
might become an error at some point in the future.
> > 2) there are no problems using bytecode :
> > 0.3s using bytecode
> > 23s using native
This I doubt very much, and indeed a quick test shows that bytecode
and native take exactly the same time. This isn't surprising:
since 99% of the time is spent is the regexp engine, and this engine
is in C, it runs at the same speed in bytecode and in native-code.
- Xavier Leroy
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-15 7:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-14 21:03 Matt Gushee
2003-05-14 22:13 ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
[not found] ` <20030514223956.GB27927@swordfish>
2003-05-14 22:41 ` Matt Gushee
2003-05-15 7:57 ` Xavier Leroy [this message]
2003-05-15 10:53 ` Michal Moskal
2003-05-14 23:13 ` Matt Gushee
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030515095751.A5384@pauillac.inria.fr \
--to=xleroy@pauillac.inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox