On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:30:57 +0400 Lev Serebryakov <l...@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hello, Bakul. > You wrote 9 =EC=E0=FF 2011 =E3., 5:17:09: > > > As per the following URLs re2 is much faster than TRE (on the > > benchmarks they ran): > > > http://lh3lh3.users.sourceforge.net/reb.shtml > > http://sljit.sourceforge.net/regex_perf.html > re2 is much faster at price of memory. I don't remember details now, > but I've found (simple) situations when re2 consumes a HUGE amount of > memory (read: hundreds of megabytes). It work faster than tre, yes. If > you have this memory to RE engine alone.
As per http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp3.html RE2 requires about 10 KB per regexp, in contrast to PCRE's half a KB. This is not excessive in this day and age. But 100s of megabytes sounds very strange.... I'd appreciate a reference to an actual example (and I am sure so would the author of re2). But I do not want to defend re2 here. My intent was to just make sure re2 was at least considered. Mainly because it was actually quite surprising to see TRE is 10 to 45 times slower than re2! _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
