At 11:29 AM 12/8/2003 +0100, Edi Weitz wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 01:15:01 -0500, Jack Tanner <hotmail.com at ihok> wrote:
>
>> Are there any disadvantages to using cl-ppcre instead of the regular
>> ACL engine?

Did anyone try the benchmark of CL-PPCRE on ACL ?

I just tried the benchmark on ACL 6.2 and CMUCL and was shocked by the results !  Either ACL is awfully slow or I am missing something. Anyone tried something similar ? 

ACL 6.2:
$mlisp
cl-user(1): (load "load.lisp")
cl-user(2): (cl-ppcreptest:test :file-name "timedata")

1: 4.0115 (1000000 repetitions, Perl: 3.4945 seconds, CL-PPCRE: 14.0180 seconds)
2: 2.9020 (1000000 repetitions, Perl: 3.8404 seconds, CL-PPCRE: 11.1450 seconds)

CMU-CL:
$lisp
* (load "load.lisp")
* (cl-ppcreptest:test :file-name "timedata")
1: 0.5637 (1000000 repetitions, Perl: 3.4945 seconds, CL-PPCRE: 1.9700 seconds)
2: 0.4296 (1000000 repetitions, Perl: 3.8404 seconds, CL-PPCRE: 1.6500 seconds)

Any insight on this would be appreciated !

-Laurent

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Laurent ESCHENAUER
R&D Engineer
PEPITe S.A. 
Parc Scientifique du Sart-Tilman 
Rue Des Chasseurs Ardennais (Spatiopole) 
B-4031 Angleur (Liege) 
Belgium 

Phone : +32 (0) 4 372 93 35 
Fax : +32 (0) 4 372 93 20 
Email : <pepite.be at laurent>
Web: http://www.pepite.be