Announcing regex-tre-0.66 and benchmarks

Simon Marlow simonmarhaskell at
Thu Aug 10 06:32:01 EDT 2006

Chris Kuklewicz wrote:

> Your question has prompted me to go back into my PosixRE wrapping code 
> and compare it to the PCRE code.  I have made some changes which ought 
> to enhance the performance of the PosixRE code.  Let us see the new 
> bechmarks on 10^6 bytes:
> PosixRE
> (102363,["bcdcd","cdc"],["bbccd","bcc"])
> real    1m35.429s
> user    1m17.862s
> sys     0m1.455s
> total is 79.317s
> (102363,["bcdcd","cdc"],["bbccd","bcc"])
> real    0m2.570s
> user    0m1.702s
> sys     0m0.219s
> total is 1.921s

So I still don't understand why PCRE should be 40 times faster than PosixRE. 
Surely this can't be just due to differences in the underlying C library?


More information about the Libraries mailing list