-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
"John Hall" writes: > "Ronan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > how much difference would it make if the spamd server was rewritten to use > > pcre. Obviously this wuold run x10 s of times faster than the current perl > > native implementation. > > > > I presume other people have considered this and decided against it for > > various reasons as I cant seem to find any reference to it on the web. > > > > Anyone have any input on this? What would be the implications? Should it > > just be a straight translation perl -> c , or are there other factors? > > Ronan, > > Why would using pcre be quicker? Perl's regex engine is written in C as > well. Besides, there is more to SA than just matching regexes. There was an attempt several years back, by one of the MPlayer guys iirc. It might be worth searching archives for that if you're still interested. For what it's worth, I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that it's pointless. It may reduce memory usage, but will have minimal effect on runtime; as John says, perl's regex engine is written in C too, so there won't be any speedup in that code at all, and that's the main bottleneck by far. The only way to speed that up is to rethink the regex engine itself. SpamAssassin is pretty well designed, speed-wise; the bottlenecks are mostly outside of the interpreted language parts. Perl is quite good about allowing you to get C speed for your hot-spot code, if you know how. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFD63/yMJF5cimLx9ARAk0SAJ9qLQ02ev0M0nGJiw3+33a90NwD/gCgnduD V9b/k4I8vlzh3VHu/kJHQ5k= =RhhS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
