From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Another regexp performance improvement: skip useless paren-captures |
Date: | 2021-08-05 15:41:38 |
Message-ID: | 0300f3b6-9be9-9365-8d1b-6b93ee554cae@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/5/21 10:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 9:43 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 8/4/21 6:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Here's a little finger exercise that improves a case that's bothered me
>>> for awhile. In a POSIX regexp, parentheses cause capturing by default;
>>> you have to write the very non-obvious "(?:...)" if you don't want the
>>> matching substring to be reported by the regexp engine.
>> It's not obscure to perl programmers :-)
> Well, I consider myself a pretty fair perl programmer,
I also consider you one :-)
Perhaps I should have said "many perl programmers".
> and I know
> there's a way to do that, but I never do it, and I would have had to
> look up the exact syntax. So +1 from me for anything automatic that
> avoids paying the overhead in some cases.
Yeah, I'm not arguing against the idea. I also have to look it up,
mainly because there is such a huge amount of stuff that can follow
"(?", do "perldoc perlre" happens a lot when I'm doing that sort of work.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-08-05 15:58:09 | Re: very long record lines in expanded psql output |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-08-05 15:13:54 | Re: very long record lines in expanded psql output |