Xpressive Videos; Playlists; Channels; About; Home Trending History Get YouTube Premium Get YouTube TV Best of YouTube Music Sports Gaming Movies. Signed-off-by: Daniela Engert [email protected]. No suggested jump to results.
- xpressive vs. Boost.Regex with GCC (Cygwin)
- xpressive vs. Boost.Regex with Visual C++
The performance of xpressive is competitive with Boost.Regex. I have run performance benchmarks comparing static xpressive, dynamic xpressive and Boost.Regex on two platforms: gcc (Cygwin) and Visual C++. The tests include short matches and long searches. For both platforms, xpressive comes off well on short matches and roughly on par with Boost.Regex on long searches.
<disclaimer> As with all benchmarks, the true test is how xpressive performs with your patterns, your input, and your platform, so if performance matters in your application, it's best to run your own tests. </disclaimer>
Below are the results of a performance comparison between:
- static xpressive
- dynamic xpressive
Test Specifications
hyper-threaded 3GHz Xeon with 1Gb RAM
Windows XP Pro + Cygwin
GNU C++ version 3.4.4 (Cygwin special)
GNU libstdc++ version 3.4.4
1.33+, BOOST_REGEX_USE_CPP_LOCALE, BOOST_REGEX_RECURSIVE
0.9.6a
Comparison 1: Short Matches
The following tests evaluate the time taken to match the expression to the input string. For each result, the top number has been normalized relative to the fastest time, so 1.0 is as good as it gets. The bottom number (in parentheses) is the actual time in seconds. The best time has been marked in green.
Short Matches
static xpressive | dynamic xpressive | Boost | Text | Expression |
---|---|---|---|---|
1(8.79e‑07s) | 1.08(9.54e‑07s) | 2.51(2.2e‑06s) | 100- this is a line of ftp response which contains a message string | ^([0-9]+)(-| |$)(.*)$ |
1.06(1.07e‑06s) | 1(1.01e‑06s) | 4.01(4.06e‑06s) | 1234-5678-1234-456 | ([[:digit:]]{4}[- ]){3}[[:digit:]]{3,4} |
1(1.4e‑06s) | 1.13(1.58e‑06s) | 2.89(4.05e‑06s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1(1.28e‑06s) | 1.16(1.49e‑06s) | 3.07(3.94e‑06s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1(1.22e‑06s) | 1.2(1.46e‑06s) | 3.22(3.93e‑06s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1.04(8.64e‑07s) | 1(8.34e‑07s) | 2.5(2.09e‑06s) | EH10 2QQ | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1.11(9.09e‑07s) | 1(8.19e‑07s) | 2.47(2.03e‑06s) | G1 1AA | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1.12(9.38e‑07s) | 1(8.34e‑07s) | 2.5(2.08e‑06s) | SW1 1ZZ | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1(7.9e‑07s) | 1.06(8.34e‑07s) | 2.49(1.96e‑06s) | 4/1/2001 | ^[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{4}$ |
1(8.19e‑07s) | 1.04(8.49e‑07s) | 2.4(1.97e‑06s) | 12/12/2001 | ^[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{4}$ |
1.09(8.95e‑07s) | 1(8.19e‑07s) | 2.4(1.96e‑06s) | 123 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
1.11(8.79e‑07s) | 1(7.9e‑07s) | 2.57(2.03e‑06s) | +3.14159 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
1.09(8.94e‑07s) | 1(8.19e‑07s) | 2.47(2.03e‑06s) | -3.14159 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
Comparison 2: Long Searches
The next test measures the time to find all matches in a long English text. The text is the complete works of Mark Twain, from Project Gutenberg. The text is 19Mb long. As above, the top number is the normalized time and the bottom number is the actual time. The best time is in green.
Long Searches
static xpressive | dynamic xpressive | Boost | Expression |
---|---|---|---|
1(0.0263s) | 1(0.0263s) | 1.78(0.0469s) | Twain |
1(0.0234s) | 1(0.0234s) | 1.79(0.042s) | Huck[[:alpha:]]+ |
1.84(1.26s) | 2.21(1.51s) | 1(0.687s) | [[:alpha:]]+ing |
1.09(0.192s) | 2(0.351s) | 1(0.176s) | ^[^]*?Twain |
1.41(0.08s) | 1.21(0.0684s) | 1(0.0566s) | Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn |
1.56(0.195s) | 1.12(0.141s) | 1(0.125s) | (Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn).{0,30}river|river.{0,30}(Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn) |
- xpressive vs. Boost.Regex with GCC (Cygwin)
- xpressive vs. Boost.Regex with Visual C++
The performance of xpressive is competitive with Boost.Regex. I have run performance benchmarks comparing static xpressive, dynamic xpressive and Boost.Regex on two platforms: gcc (Cygwin) and Visual C++. The tests include short matches and long searches. For both platforms, xpressive comes off well on short matches and roughly on par with Boost.Regex on long searches.
<disclaimer> As with all benchmarks, the true test is how xpressive performs with your patterns, your input, and your Videoproc 3 5. platform, so if performance matters in your application, it's best to run your own tests. </disclaimer>
Below are the results of a performance comparison between:
- static xpressive
- dynamic xpressive
Test Specifications Movist pro media player for macos 2 2 14.
Photolemur photo enhancement on autopilot 2 3 0. hyper-threaded 3GHz Xeon with 1Gb RAM
Windows XP Pro + Cygwin
GNU C++ version 3.4.4 (Cygwin special)
GNU libstdc++ version 3.4.4
1.33+, BOOST_REGEX_USE_CPP_LOCALE, BOOST_REGEX_RECURSIVE
0.9.6a
Comparison 1: Short Matches
The following tests evaluate the time taken to match the expression to the input string. For each result, the top number has been normalized relative to the fastest time, so 1.0 is as good as it gets. The bottom number (in parentheses) is the actual time in seconds. The best time has been marked in green.
Short Matches
static xpressive | dynamic xpressive | Boost | Text | Expression |
---|---|---|---|---|
1(8.79e‑07s) | 1.08(9.54e‑07s) | 2.51(2.2e‑06s) | 100- this is a line of ftp response which contains a message string | ^([0-9]+)(-| |$)(.*)$ |
1.06(1.07e‑06s) | 1(1.01e‑06s) | 4.01(4.06e‑06s) | 1234-5678-1234-456 | ([[:digit:]]{4}[- ]){3}[[:digit:]]{3,4} |
1(1.4e‑06s) | 1.13(1.58e‑06s) | 2.89(4.05e‑06s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1(1.28e‑06s) | 1.16(1.49e‑06s) | 3.07(3.94e‑06s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1(1.22e‑06s) | 1.2(1.46e‑06s) | 3.22(3.93e‑06s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1.04(8.64e‑07s) | 1(8.34e‑07s) | 2.5(2.09e‑06s) | EH10 2QQ | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1.11(9.09e‑07s) | 1(8.19e‑07s) | 2.47(2.03e‑06s) | G1 1AA | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1.12(9.38e‑07s) | 1(8.34e‑07s) | 2.5(2.08e‑06s) | SW1 1ZZ | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1(7.9e‑07s) | 1.06(8.34e‑07s) | 2.49(1.96e‑06s) | 4/1/2001 | ^[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{4}$ |
1(8.19e‑07s) | 1.04(8.49e‑07s) | 2.4(1.97e‑06s) | 12/12/2001 | ^[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{4}$ |
1.09(8.95e‑07s) | 1(8.19e‑07s) | 2.4(1.96e‑06s) | 123 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
1.11(8.79e‑07s) | 1(7.9e‑07s) | 2.57(2.03e‑06s) | +3.14159 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
1.09(8.94e‑07s) | 1(8.19e‑07s) | 2.47(2.03e‑06s) | -3.14159 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
Comparison 2: Long Searches
The next test measures the time to find all matches in a long English text. The text is the complete works of Mark Twain, from Project Gutenberg. The text is 19Mb long. As above, the top number is the normalized time and the bottom number is the actual time. The best time is in green.
Long Searches
static xpressive | dynamic xpressive | Boost | Expression |
---|---|---|---|
1(0.0263s) | 1(0.0263s) | 1.78(0.0469s) | Twain |
1(0.0234s) | 1(0.0234s) | 1.79(0.042s) | Huck[[:alpha:]]+ |
1.84(1.26s) | 2.21(1.51s) | 1(0.687s) | [[:alpha:]]+ing |
1.09(0.192s) | 2(0.351s) | 1(0.176s) | ^[^]*?Twain |
1.41(0.08s) | 1.21(0.0684s) | 1(0.0566s) | Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn |
1.56(0.195s) | 1.12(0.141s) | 1(0.125s) | (Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn).{0,30}river|river.{0,30}(Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn) |
Below are the results of a performance comparison between:
- static xpressive
- dynamic xpressive
Test Specifications
hyper-threaded 3GHz Xeon with 1Gb RAM
Windows XP Pro
Visual C++ .NET 2003 (7.1)
Proof That 1 Equals 0
Dinkumware, version 313
1.33+, BOOST_REGEX_USE_CPP_LOCALE, BOOST_REGEX_RECURSIVE
1 Equals 0
0.9.6a
Comparison 1: Short Matches
The following tests evaluate the time taken to match the expression to the input string. For each result, the top number has been normalized relative to the fastest time, so 1.0 is as good as it gets. The bottom number (in parentheses) is the actual time in seconds. The best time has been marked in green.
Short Matches
static xpressive | dynamic xpressive | Boost | Text | Expression |
---|---|---|---|---|
1(3.2e‑007s) | 1.37(4.4e‑007s) | 2.38(7.6e‑007s) | 100- this is a line of ftp response which contains a message string | ^([0-9]+)(-| |$)(.*)$ |
1(6.4e‑007s) | 1.12(7.15e‑007s) | 1.72(1.1e‑006s) | 1234-5678-1234-456 | ([[:digit:]]{4}[- ]){3}[[:digit:]]{3,4} |
1(9.82e‑007s) | 1.3(1.28e‑006s) | 1.61(1.58e‑006s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1(8.94e‑007s) | 1.3(1.16e‑006s) | 1.7(1.52e‑006s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1(9.09e‑007s) | 1.28(1.16e‑006s) | 1.67(1.52e‑006s) | [email protected] | ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-.]+)@(([[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.[0-9]{1,3}.)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+.)+))([a-zA-Z]{2,4}|[0-9]{1,3})(]?)$ |
1(3.06e‑007s) | 1.07(3.28e‑007s) | 1.95(5.96e‑007s) | EH10 2QQ | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1(3.13e‑007s) | 1.09(3.42e‑007s) | 1.86(5.81e‑007s) | G1 1AA | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1(3.2e‑007s) | 1.09(3.5e‑007s) | 1.86(5.96e‑007s) | SW1 1ZZ | ^[a-zA-Z]{1,2}[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]{0,1} {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}$ |
1(2.68e‑007s) | 1.22(3.28e‑007s) | 2(5.36e‑007s) | 4/1/2001 | ^[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{4}$ |
1(2.76e‑007s) | 1.16(3.2e‑007s) | 1.94(5.36e‑007s) | 12/12/2001 | ^[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{1,2}/[[:digit:]]{4}$ |
1(2.98e‑007s) | 1.03(3.06e‑007s) | 1.85(5.51e‑007s) | 123 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
1(3.2e‑007s) | 1.12(3.58e‑007s) | 1.81(5.81e‑007s) | +3.14159 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
1(3.28e‑007s) | 1.11(3.65e‑007s) | 1.77(5.81e‑007s) | -3.14159 | ^[-+]?[[:digit:]]*.?[[:digit:]]*$ |
Comparison 2: Long Searches
The next test measures the time to find all matches in a long English text. The text is the complete works of Mark Twain, from Project Gutenberg. The text is 19Mb long. As above, the top number is the normalized time and the bottom number is the actual time. The best time is in green.
Long Searches
static xpressive | dynamic xpressive | Boost | Expression |
---|---|---|---|
1(0.019s) | 1(0.019s) | 2.98(0.0566s) | Twain |
1(0.0176s) | 1(0.0176s) | 3.17(0.0556s) | Huck[[:alpha:]]+ |
3.62(1.78s) | 3.97(1.95s) | 1(0.492s) | [[:alpha:]]+ing |
2.32(0.344s) | 3.06(0.453s) | 1(0.148s) | ^[^]*?Twain |
1(0.0576s) | 1.05(0.0606s) | 1.15(0.0664s) | Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn |
1.24(0.164s) | 1.44(0.191s) | 1(0.133s) | (Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn).{0,30}river|river.{0,30}(Tom|Sawyer|Huckleberry|Finn) |