On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Erik Rijkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, December 18, 2012 09:45, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >
> > You should use {0,n} to express from 0 to n occurences.
> >
>
>
> Thanks, but I know that of course. It's a testing program; and in the end
> robustness with
> unexpected or even wrong input is as important as performance. (to put it
> bluntly, I am also
> trying to get your patch to fall over ;-))
>
I found most of regressions in 0.9 version to be in {,n} cases. New version
of patch use more of trigrams than previous versions.
For example for regex 'x[aeiou]{,2}q'.
In 0.7 version we use trigrams '__2', '_2_' and '__q'.
In 0.9 version we use trigrams 'xa_', 'xe_', 'xi_', 'xo_', 'xu_', '__2',
'_2_' and '__q'.
But, actually trigram '__2' or '_2_' never occurs. It enough to have one of
them, all others are just causing a slowdown. Simultaneously, we can't
decide reasonably which trigrams to use without knowing their frequencies.
For example, if trigrams 'xa_', 'xe_', 'xi_', 'xo_', 'xu_' were altogether
more rare than '__2', newer version of patch would be faster.
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
