When you run that in the listener it uses the non optimizing compiler.
You should use the EBNF: word [=[ ... ]=] form and then refer to word for it to
be a compiled parser.
It’ll be much faster.
Or wrap all that in a : foo ( — ) ... ;
> On Nov 22, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Alexander Ilin <ajs...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I've got my first test results, and I'm having some doubts.
>
> The following code runs almost 200 seconds on a 20Mb file:
>
> "file-name.csv" [ utf8 [ input-stream get
> [
> EBNF[=[
> quotedColumn = "\""~ (!("\"") .)* "\""~ quotedColumn*
> => [[ first2 swap prefix [ >string ] map "\"" join ]]
> unquotedColumn = (!("\t") .)*
> column = ( quotedColumn | unquotedColumn ) => [[ >string ]]
> rule = column ( "\t"~ column )* => [[ first2 swap prefix ]]
> ]=] ,
> ] each-stream-line
> ] with-file-reader ] { } make
>
>
> The following equivalent code using the csv vocab runs about 2 seconds on
> the same file:
>
> "file-name.csv" [ utf8 [ input-stream get CHAR: \t [
> [ string>csv [ first , ] unless-empty ] each-stream-line
> ] with-delimiter ] with-file-reader ] { } make
>
>
> The difference is 100x, and the question is: is the speed difference related
> to the fact that I'm running the code in the Listener? Could it be that if I
> put it all into a vocab as opposed to running interactively it would get
> better optimized and reach the performance of the csv vocab?
>
> ---=====---
> Александр
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Factor-talk mailing list
> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
