Re: Slow regular-expression engine

On Jul 31, 11:37 am, domini...@xxxxxxx wrote:
> w_a_x_man <w_a_x_...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > This Awk  code takes less than one hundredth of a second to run:
>
> > BEGIN {
>
> >   regex = \
> >     "o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?" \
> >     "o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?" \
> >     "ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"
>
> >   print "ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" ~ regex
>
> > }
>
> > This Ruby code takes 27.5 seconds:
>
> > t = Time.now
>
> > regex = Regexp.new(
> >   "o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?" +
> >   "o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?o?" +
> >   "ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" )
>
> > p "ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" =~ regex
>
> > puts "#{ Time.now - t } seconds"
>
> > Seehttp://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html
>
> In Ruby 1.9 its 1/4 of the time (still slow).
>
> But: One might ask if that is a problem at all, considering that this
> Regexp looks and is awful and could be written in a way better way which
> takes times of 0.000139965 seconds.
>
> t = Time.now
> regex = Regexp.new(/o{0,27}ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo/ )
> p "ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" =~ regex
> puts "#{ Time.now - t } seconds"
>
> --
> Dominik Honnef
> domini...@xxxxxxx

Quoting the article:

  ... it is possible to write so-called "pathological" regular
  expressions that Perl matches very very slowly. In contrast,
  there are no regular expressions that are pathological for
  the Thompson NFA implementation. Seeing the two graphs side
  by side prompts the question, "why doesn't Perl use the
  Thompson NFA approach?" It can, it should ...