pg.ddx.io pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedBUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior
4+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior
@ 2023-01-27 09:27 PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2023-01-27 12:42 ` Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: PG Bug reporting form @ 2023-01-27 09:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: kosiodg@yahoo.com
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 17761
Logged by: Konstantin Geordzhev
Email address: kosiodg@yahoo.com
PostgreSQL version: 11.10
Operating system: tested online
Description:
Executing:
select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
'(a).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
returns: {a,1,1,NULL}
while executing:
select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
'(a|b).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
returns: {a,1,1250,2500}
Shouldn't both results be equal?
Tested online at:
https://extendsclass.com/postgresql-online.html
and on ubuntu version 9.5
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior
2023-01-27 09:27 BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
@ 2023-01-27 12:42 ` hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>
2023-01-27 16:04 ` Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: hubert depesz lubaczewski @ 2023-01-27 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kosiodg@yahoo.com; pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 09:27:35AM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 17761
> Logged by: Konstantin Geordzhev
> Email address: kosiodg@yahoo.com
> PostgreSQL version: 11.10
> Operating system: tested online
> Description:
>
> Executing:
> select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
> '(a).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
> returns: {a,1,1,NULL}
> while executing:
> select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
> '(a|b).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
> returns: {a,1,1250,2500}
>
> Shouldn't both results be equal?
The problem is, afair, that there is some state in pg's regexp engine
that makes greedy/ungreedy decision once per regexp.
I don't recall details, but my take from back when I learned about it
(years ago) is to try to avoid things like .*?
Instead you can:
#v+
$ select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500', '(a)\D*([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
regexp_matches
─────────────────
{a,1,1250,2500}
(1 row)
#v-
depesz
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior
2023-01-27 09:27 BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2023-01-27 12:42 ` Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>
@ 2023-01-27 16:04 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2023-01-30 08:11 ` Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior Kosio Dimitrov <kosiodg@yahoo.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2023-01-27 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: depesz@depesz.com; +Cc: kosiodg@yahoo.com; pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 09:27:35AM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
>> Executing:
>> select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
>> '(a).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
>> returns: {a,1,1,NULL}
>> while executing:
>> select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
>> '(a|b).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
>> returns: {a,1,1250,2500}
>>
>> Shouldn't both results be equal?
> The problem is, afair, that there is some state in pg's regexp engine
> that makes greedy/ungreedy decision once per regexp.
Yeah. Without having traced through it, I'm fairly sure that in the
first case, we have "(a)" which has no greediness, then ".*?" which
is non-greedy, and then that determines the overall greediness as
non-greedy, so it goes for the shortest overall match not the longest.
In the second case, "(a|b)" is greedy because anything involving "|"
is greedy, so we immediately decide we'll be greedy overall.
The fine manual explains how you can force greediness or non-greediness
when the engine's default rules for that don't do what you want.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior
2023-01-27 09:27 BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2023-01-27 12:42 ` Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>
2023-01-27 16:04 ` Re: BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2023-01-30 08:11 ` Kosio Dimitrov <kosiodg@yahoo.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kosio Dimitrov @ 2023-01-30 08:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: depesz@depesz.com <depesz@depesz.com>; Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Yes, greediness seems to be the case,One other solution I found to make it greedy is to add '.*$' at the end:'(a).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?.*$'
В петък, 27 януари 2023 г., 18:05:01 ч. Гринуич+2, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> написа:
hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 09:27:35AM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
>> Executing:
>> select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
>> '(a).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
>> returns: {a,1,1,NULL}
>> while executing:
>> select regexp_matches('a 1x1250x2500',
>> '(a|b).*?([1-9]\d*)\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*)(?:\s*x\s*([1-9]\d*))?');
>> returns: {a,1,1250,2500}
>>
>> Shouldn't both results be equal?
> The problem is, afair, that there is some state in pg's regexp engine
> that makes greedy/ungreedy decision once per regexp.
Yeah. Without having traced through it, I'm fairly sure that in the
first case, we have "(a)" which has no greediness, then ".*?" which
is non-greedy, and then that determines the overall greediness as
non-greedy, so it goes for the shortest overall match not the longest.
In the second case, "(a|b)" is greedy because anything involving "|"
is greedy, so we immediately decide we'll be greedy overall.
The fine manual explains how you can force greediness or non-greediness
when the engine's default rules for that don't do what you want.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-30 08:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-27 09:27 BUG #17761: Questionable regular expression behavior PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2023-01-27 12:42 ` hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>
2023-01-27 16:04 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2023-01-30 08:11 ` Kosio Dimitrov <kosiodg@yahoo.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox