Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAypq-0006yF-Vq for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 17:35:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAypp-0004n7-GS for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 17:35:57 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAypp-0004mz-A5 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 17:35:57 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAypi-0002gO-Ln for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 17:35:56 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 11DHZjmv1662034; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:35:45 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: "Joel Jacobson" cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Some regular-expression performance hacking In-reply-to: <85140bfb-516c-449b-8a03-7930abb42b88@www.fastmail.com> References: <1340281.1613018383@sss.pgh.pa.us> <85140bfb-516c-449b-8a03-7930abb42b88@www.fastmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Joel Jacobson" message dated "Sat, 13 Feb 2021 18:19:34 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1662032.1613237745.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:35:45 -0500 Message-ID: <1662033.1613237745@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk "Joel Jacobson" writes: > In total, I scraped the first-page of some ~50k websites, > which produced 45M test rows to import, > which when GROUP BY pattern and flags was reduced > down to 235k different regex patterns, > and 1.5M different text string subjects. This seems like an incredibly useful test dataset. I'd definitely like a copy. > No is_match differences were detected, good! Cool ... > However, there were 23 cases where what got captured differed: I shall take a closer look at that. Many thanks for doing this work! regards, tom lane