Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

14
  • 1
    I'd guess that this is probably a complex enough query that it would be faster than the OP's approach, especially if pre-compiled. I have no evidence to back that up, however. It should be tested. Unless it's drastically slower, I'd choose this approach regardless, since it's way easier to read and maintain. +1 Commented Jul 13, 2009 at 15:48
  • 6
    Its a very simple regex (no backtracking or any complex stuff in there) so it should be pretty damn fast. Commented Jul 13, 2009 at 16:00
  • 10
    @rmeador: without it being compiled it is about 5x slower, compiled it is 3x slower than his method. Still 10x simpler though :-D Commented Jul 13, 2009 at 16:15
  • 7
    Regular expressions are no magical hammers and never faster than hand optimized code. Commented Jul 13, 2009 at 16:58
  • 3
    For those who remember Knuth's famous quote about optimization, this is where to start. Then, if you find that you need the extra thousandth of a millisecond performance, go with one of the other techniques. Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 19:02