# Fwd: 1.9 significantly slower than 1.8 on Mac

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fwd-1-9-significantly-slower-than-1-8-on-mac/126121>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [January 15, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fwd-1-9-significantly-slower-than-1-8-on-mac/126121 "2008-01-15T16:31:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![derek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@derek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/derek)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fwd-1-9-significantly-slower-than-1-8-on-mac/126121/1 "2008-01-15T16:31:32Z")

</div>

Hmm. Simplifying my test script further, I am not sure that Regexp is  
the problem at all!  
With the each\_line block, my script take more than TWICE as long in  
1.9 vs. 1.8.  
But without the each\_line block, but keeping the Regexp, it is 10%  
FASTER.

So unless there is some internal optimisation that occurs when the  
block is removed, it looks like each\_line is the problem, not Regexp???

> 500000.times do  
> end  
> $ ruby logreport3.rb  
> user system total real  
> WITH each\_line: 1.710000 0.000000 1.710000 ( 1.717034)  
> WITHOUT each\_line: 1.080000 0.000000 1.080000 ( 1.077098)

$ ruby19 logreport3.rb

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![derek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@derek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/derek)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 4:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fwd-1-9-significantly-slower-than-1-8-on-mac/126121/2 "2008-01-15T16:56:55Z")

</div>

> > > > > “D” == Derek C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes:

D\> So unless there is some internal optimisation that occurs when the  
D\> block is removed, it looks like each\_line is the problem, not  
Regexp???

Well, some part of #each\_line for 1.8.6

```
for (s = p, p += rslen; p < pend; p++) {
    if (rslen == 0 && *p == '\n') {
        if (*++p != '\n') continue;
        while (*p == '\n') p++;
    }

```

easy : increment p and test

the same for 1.9

```
while (p < pend) {
    int c = rb_enc_codepoint(p, pend, enc);
    int n = rb_enc_codelen(c, enc);

    if (rslen == 0 && c == newline) {
        while (p < pend && rb_enc_codepoint(p, pend, enc) == 

```

newline) {  
p += n;  
}  
p -= n;  
}

a little more complex :

retrieve the code point  
retrieve its length  
etc,

Guy Decoux

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![derek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b38774/32.png) [@derek](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/derek)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fwd-1-9-significantly-slower-than-1-8-on-mac/126121/3 "2008-01-15T19:21:11Z")

</div>

Derek C. pisze:

> Hmm. Simplifying my test script further, I am not sure that Regexp is  
> the problem at all!  
> With the each\_line block, my script take more than TWICE as long in  
> 1.9 vs. 1.8.  
> But without the each\_line block, but keeping the Regexp, it is 10%  
> FASTER.

Oops, It seems you’re right, just split the original logfile and use  
each instead of each\_line and it gets a whole lot faster (the  
rb\_str\_each\_line is encoding aware). Anyways, it doesn’t change the fact  
that Oniguruma might be opted here as well.

lopex