/
usr
/
share
/
doc
/
pcre-devel
/
html
/
/usr/share/doc/pcre-devel/html
mkdir
upload
Name
Size
Mode
Actions
index.html
7677
0644
edit
dl
rm
NON-AUTOTOOLS-BUILD.txt
31359
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre-config.html
3659
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre.html
10382
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre16.html
16214
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre32.html
16098
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcreapi.html
135354
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrebuild.html
22838
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrecallout.html
11675
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrecompat.html
9791
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrecpp.html
14395
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcredemo.html
16192
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcregrep.html
37847
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrejit.html
22103
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrelimits.html
3195
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrematching.html
10898
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrepartial.html
23592
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrepattern.html
140690
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcreperform.html
7827
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcreposix.html
12139
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcreprecompile.html
7399
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcresample.html
3784
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcrestack.html
9594
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcresyntax.html
16694
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcretest.html
52187
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcreunicode.html
11444
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_assign_jit_stack.html
2541
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_compile.html
4735
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_compile2.html
4907
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_config.html
3938
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_copy_named_substring.html
2359
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_copy_substring.html
2115
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_dfa_exec.html
5969
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_exec.html
5059
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_free_study.html
1231
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_free_substring.html
1283
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_free_substring_list.html
1289
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_fullinfo.html
5150
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_get_named_substring.html
2460
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_get_stringnumber.html
1773
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_get_stringtable_entries.html
2062
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_get_substring.html
2243
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_get_substring_list.html
2198
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_jit_exec.html
4814
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_jit_stack_alloc.html
1720
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_jit_stack_free.html
1279
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_maketables.html
1397
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_pattern_to_host_byte_order.html
1960
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_refcount.html
1442
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_study.html
2146
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_utf16_to_host_byte_order.html
2033
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_utf32_to_host_byte_order.html
2033
0644
edit
dl
rm
pcre_version.html
1172
0644
edit
dl
rm
README.txt
45548
0644
edit
dl
rm
Edit:
/usr/share/doc/pcre-devel/html/pcreperform.html
(7827B)
<html> <head> <title>pcreperform specification</title> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#00005A" link="#0066FF" alink="#3399FF" vlink="#2222BB"> <h1>pcreperform man page</h1> <p> Return to the <a href="index.html">PCRE index page</a>. </p> <p> This page is part of the PCRE HTML documentation. It was generated automatically from the original man page. If there is any nonsense in it, please consult the man page, in case the conversion went wrong. <br> <br><b> PCRE PERFORMANCE </b><br> <P> Two aspects of performance are discussed below: memory usage and processing time. The way you express your pattern as a regular expression can affect both of them. </P> <br><b> COMPILED PATTERN MEMORY USAGE </b><br> <P> Patterns are compiled by PCRE into a reasonably efficient interpretive code, so that most simple patterns do not use much memory. However, there is one case where the memory usage of a compiled pattern can be unexpectedly large. If a parenthesized subpattern has a quantifier with a minimum greater than 1 and/or a limited maximum, the whole subpattern is repeated in the compiled code. For example, the pattern <pre> (abc|def){2,4} </pre> is compiled as if it were <pre> (abc|def)(abc|def)((abc|def)(abc|def)?)? </pre> (Technical aside: It is done this way so that backtrack points within each of the repetitions can be independently maintained.) </P> <P> For regular expressions whose quantifiers use only small numbers, this is not usually a problem. However, if the numbers are large, and particularly if such repetitions are nested, the memory usage can become an embarrassment. For example, the very simple pattern <pre> ((ab){1,1000}c){1,3} </pre> uses 51K bytes when compiled using the 8-bit library. When PCRE is compiled with its default internal pointer size of two bytes, the size limit on a compiled pattern is 64K data units, 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. </P> <P> One way of reducing the memory usage for such patterns is to make use of PCRE's <a href="pcrepattern.html#subpatternsassubroutines">"subroutine"</a> facility. Re-writing the above pattern as <pre> ((ab)(?2){0,999}c)(?1){0,2} </pre> 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 <a href="pcrepattern.html#atomicgroup">atomic groups</a> 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. </P> <br><b> STACK USAGE AT RUN TIME </b><br> <P> When <b>pcre_exec()</b> or <b>pcre[16|32]_exec()</b> is used for matching, certain kinds of pattern can cause it to use large amounts of the process stack. In some environments the default process stack is quite small, and if it runs out the result is often SIGSEGV. This issue is probably the most frequently raised problem with PCRE. Rewriting your pattern can often help. The <a href="pcrestack.html"><b>pcrestack</b></a> documentation discusses this issue in detail. </P> <br><b> PROCESSING TIME </b><br> <P> Certain items in regular expression patterns are processed more efficiently 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. </P> <P> Using Unicode character properties (the \p, \P, and \X escapes) is slow, because PCRE has to use a multi-stage table lookup 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. </P> <P> By default, the escape sequences \b, \d, \s, and \w, and the POSIX character classes such as [:alpha:] do not use Unicode properties, partly for backwards compatibility, and partly for performance reasons. However, you can set PCRE_UCP if you want Unicode character properties to be used. This can double the matching time for items such as \d, when matched with a traditional matching function; the performance loss is less with a DFA matching function, and in both cases there is not much difference for \b. </P> <P> 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 newlines, the pattern may match from the character immediately following one of them instead of from the very start. For example, the pattern <pre> .*second </pre> 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. </P> <P> If you are using such a pattern with subject strings that do not contain newlines, the best performance is obtained by setting PCRE_DOTALL, or starting the pattern with ^.* or ^.*? to indicate explicit anchoring. That saves PCRE from having to scan along the subject looking for a newline to restart at. </P> <P> 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 <pre> ^(a+)* </pre> 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. </P> <P> An optimization catches some of the more simple cases such as <pre> (a+)*b </pre> where a literal character follows. Before embarking on the standard matching procedure, PCRE checks that there is a "b" later in the subject string, and if there is not, it fails the match immediately. However, when there is no following literal this optimization cannot be used. You can see the difference by comparing the behaviour of <pre> (a+)*\d </pre> 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. </P> <P> In many cases, the solution to this kind of performance issue is to use an atomic group or a possessive quantifier. </P> <br><b> AUTHOR </b><br> <P> Philip Hazel <br> University Computing Service <br> Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. <br> </P> <br><b> REVISION </b><br> <P> Last updated: 25 August 2012 <br> Copyright © 1997-2012 University of Cambridge. <br> <p> Return to the <a href="index.html">PCRE index page</a>. </p>
Save
cmd:
run