> On Mar 26, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Thomas Jackson <jacksontj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The biggest performance gain I see of separate regexes is that I can > execute the unique domain regexes which should resolve to a list of path > regexes. This should be pretty big performance wise as a lot of rules in > large remaps have the same domain which may or may not be a regex.
Agreed. That also retains some if the old regex_remap performance characteristics. -- Leif >> On Mar 26, 2014 6:20 AM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Brian Geffon <bri...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Thomas, I somewhat agree: my guess would be the additional regexes would >>> likely cancel any performance gain there. >>> >>> Does anyone else have feedback or comments? >> >> >> The other argument for this is that with separate regexes, you don't have >> to create the full URL string representation. I don't know if the core has >> any optimizations here, but for a plugin that is an expensive operation. >> With separate regexes for host and path, this is a non-issue. >> >> Maybe you can do separate regexes but let expansions cross over? $h[1] for >> a host group etc. >> >> Pros and cons :) >> >> -- Leif >> >>> >>> Brian >>> >>>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, Thomas Jackson <jacksontj...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Another consideration for having >1 regex (which may or may not be >>>> premature optimization) is that if you have seperate regexes we can >> create >>>> hash maps similar to how maps work (a hashmap of domain_regex -> list of >>>> path regexes) which would make overall remap performance faster/better. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Brian Geffon <bri...@apache.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bri...@apache.org');> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','zw...@apache.org');>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Brian Geffon <briangef...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What Thomas called Question #1 -- 1 Regex. >>>>>> >>>>>> Makes sense to have them combined. Assuming groups etc. works, that >>>>>> allows you to do e.g. >>>>>> >>>>>> regex_map http://(.*)\.ogre\.com/([^/]+)/(.*) http://$2/$1/$3 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> or some such. i.e. take parts from the path match and use as the host, >>>>>> and vice versa. Right? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Leif >>
