DOC HOME SITE MAP MAN PAGES GNU INFO SEARCH PRINT BOOK
 

/usr/man/cat.3/pcreperform.3.Z(/usr/man/cat.3/pcreperform.3.Z)





NAME

       PCRE - Perl-compatible regular expressions


PCRE PERFORMANCE


       Two  aspects  of performance are discussed below: memory usage and pro-
       cessing time. The way you express your pattern as a regular  expression
       can affect both of them.


MEMORY USAGE


       Patterns are compiled by PCRE into a reasonably efficient byte code, so
       that most simple patterns do not use much memory. However, there is one
       case where memory usage can be unexpectedly large. When a parenthesized
       subpattern has a quantifier with a minimum greater than 1 and/or a lim-
       ited  maximum,  the  whole subpattern is repeated in the compiled code.
       For example, the pattern

         (abc|def){2,4}

       is compiled as if it were

         (abc|def)(abc|def)((abc|def)(abc|def)?)?

       (Technical aside: It is done this way so that backtrack  points  within
       each of the repetitions can be independently maintained.)

       For  regular expressions whose quantifiers use only small numbers, this
       is not usually a problem. However, if the numbers are large,  and  par-
       ticularly  if  such repetitions are nested, the memory usage can become
       an embarrassment. For example, the very simple pattern

         ((ab){1,1000}c){1,3}

       uses 51K bytes when compiled. When PCRE is compiled  with  its  default
       internal  pointer  size of two bytes, the size limit on a compiled pat-
       tern is 64K, and this is reached with the above pattern  if  the  outer
       repetition is increased from 3 to 4. PCRE can be compiled to use larger
       internal pointers and thus handle larger compiled patterns, but  it  is
       better to try to rewrite your pattern to use less memory if you can.

       One  way  of reducing the memory usage for such patterns is to make use
       of PCRE's "subroutine" facility. Re-writing the above pattern as

         ((ab)(?2){0,999}c)(?1){0,2}

       reduces the memory requirements to 18K, and indeed it remains under 20K
       even  with the outer repetition increased to 100. However, this pattern
       is not exactly equivalent, because the "subroutine" calls  are  treated
       as  atomic groups into which there can be no backtracking if there is a
       subsequent matching failure. Therefore, PCRE cannot  do  this  kind  of
       rewriting  automatically.   Furthermore,  there is a noticeable loss of
       speed when executing the modified pattern. Nevertheless, if the  atomic
       grouping  is  not  a  problem and the loss of speed is acceptable, this
       kind of rewriting will allow you to process patterns that  PCRE  cannot
       otherwise handle.


PROCESSING TIME


       Certain  items  in regular expression patterns are processed more effi-
       ciently than others. It is more efficient to use a character class like
       [aeiou]   than   a   set   of  single-character  alternatives  such  as
       (a|e|i|o|u). In general, the simplest construction  that  provides  the
       required behaviour is usually the most efficient. Jeffrey Friedl's book
       contains a lot of useful general discussion  about  optimizing  regular
       expressions  for  efficient  performance.  This document contains a few
       observations about PCRE.

       Using Unicode character properties (the \p,  \P,  and  \X  escapes)  is
       slow,  because PCRE has to scan a structure that contains data for over
       fifteen thousand characters whenever it needs a  character's  property.
       If  you  can  find  an  alternative pattern that does not use character
       properties, it will probably be faster.

       When a pattern begins with .* not in  parentheses,  or  in  parentheses
       that are not the subject of a backreference, and the PCRE_DOTALL option
       is set, the pattern is implicitly anchored by PCRE, since it can  match
       only  at  the start of a subject string. However, if PCRE_DOTALL is not
       set, PCRE cannot make this optimization, because  the  .  metacharacter
       does  not then match a newline, and if the subject string contains new-
       lines, the pattern may match from the character  immediately  following
       one of them instead of from the very start. For example, the pattern

         .*second

       matches  the subject "first\nand second" (where \n stands for a newline
       character), with the match starting at the seventh character. In  order
       to do this, PCRE has to retry the match starting after every newline in
       the subject.

       If you are using such a pattern with subject strings that do  not  con-
       tain newlines, the best performance is obtained by setting PCRE_DOTALL,
       or starting the pattern with ^.* or ^.*? to indicate  explicit  anchor-
       ing.  That saves PCRE from having to scan along the subject looking for
       a newline to restart at.

       Beware of patterns that contain nested indefinite  repeats.  These  can
       take  a  long time to run when applied to a string that does not match.
       Consider the pattern fragment

         ^(a+)*

       This can match "aaaa" in 16 different ways, and this  number  increases
       very  rapidly  as the string gets longer. (The * repeat can match 0, 1,
       2, 3, or 4 times, and for each of those cases other than 0 or 4, the  +
       repeats  can  match  different numbers of times.) When the remainder of
       the pattern is such that the entire match is going to fail, PCRE has in
       principle  to  try  every  possible  variation,  and  this  can take an
       extremely long time, even for relatively short strings.

       An optimization catches some of the more simple cases such as

         (a+)*b

       where a literal character follows. Before  embarking  on  the  standard
       matching  procedure,  PCRE checks that there is a "b" later in the sub-
       ject string, and if there is not, it fails the match immediately.  How-
       ever,  when  there  is no following literal this optimization cannot be
       used. You can see the difference by comparing the behaviour of

         (a+)*\d

       with the pattern above. The former gives  a  failure  almost  instantly
       when  applied  to  a  whole  line of "a" characters, whereas the latter
       takes an appreciable time with strings longer than about 20 characters.

       In many cases, the solution to this kind of performance issue is to use
       an atomic group or a possessive quantifier.


AUTHOR


       Philip Hazel
       University Computing Service
       Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.


REVISION


       Last updated: 06 March 2007
       Copyright (c) 1997-2007 University of Cambridge.

                                                                PCREPERFORM(3)

Man(1) output converted with man2html