5 ms·

I'll write a simple grep tool right now in C# then and see what performance I can get. I'll get back to you when I finish.

by maldev 4y ago

burntsushi 4y ago
Here are your benchmarks to try: https://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/ https://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/ If you respond, please provide instructions to reproduce your measurements for a Linux machine. Why do you even have to write one in the first place? If C# is such a natural choice, why hasn't it already been done?
- maldev 4y ago
  Powershell actually ships one! I think you have a good point. I was going to build my own as C# ships alot of configuration options that can DRASTICALLY improve speed, which arn't on by default. But, we can test Redmonds version and get at least a decent idea of if it's suitable. I'll run some tests on that and get back to you in an hour or so. I'll use the same tests you have on https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/benchsuite/runs/2016-09-20-ubuntu1604-ec2/raw.csv https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/benchsuite... My testing will be on my Dev VM, in a WSL container on ubuntu 22.04, targeting a built linux kernel. With powershell from the Microsoft blobs they ship for linux. And Ripgrep from just Apt Install Ripgrep. With 5 warmup cycles for each.
  - burntsushi 4y ago
    Please be sure to read my blog post that I linked very carefully. Benchmarking greps is rather difficult and quite subtle. Are you talking about findstr? If so, I'm not sure that's available on Linux. So it doesn't seem like a viable grep to me. If the program you want to be a grep only runs on Windows, then that isn't really viable. Also, Windows file system operations tend to be quite a bit slower than Linux. Also, where is the source for findstr?
    - maldev 4y ago
      Alright, so initial testing result. I'm not going to even bother putting into excel, RipGrep blew the hell out of Powershells built in stuff. Like, we're talking exponentially quicker, so well done. (3 minutes for Pwsh vs 2 seconds Ripgrep) But I don't think it's the fault of C# and I think it's the fault of some poor coding on redmonds side, and very good coding on your side. And since I have to make up 12 hours tomorrow at work, but have zero tickets. I'll probably go in and write a Grep utility in C# and I think I can get similar speed to the Rust implementation. C# is also cross platform as of a couple years ago, as well as is powershell. So my testing was running Powershell on linux against the newest linux kernel source code + the build artifacts.
      - majkinetor 4y ago
        You can't compare rg with other full RE engines. Try to repeat the test by switching its regex engine to use PCRE2 ( --pcre2 ).
        burntsushi 4y ago
        What? Can you say more? In many cases, ripgrep's speed is due in part to integrations with the default regex engine that don't happen with PCRE2.
        majkinetor 4y ago
        Why would you compare C#/pwsh PCRE with somethign that is not PCRE and hence has different features. Compare with rg that has --pcre option set if you want to get real comparison.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        Why wouldn't you? The other poster hasn't even said which regex engine or which tool they're measuring. PCRE is absolutely a competitor to Rust's regex crate and it makes sense to compare them. If all you're doing is measuring the time it takes to find `foo` or `\w+_foo`, then the specific regex engine being used is just an implementation detail. I'm not saying that using --pcre2 is wrong. It is certainly a useful comparison. But using the default regex engine when the task is "measure a grep" is certainly not wrong either.
  - burntsushi 4y ago
    And does findstr support regex?

I'll write a simple grep tool right now in C# then and see what performance I can get. I'll get back to you when I finish.

by maldev 4y ago

I'll write a simple grep tool right now in C# then and see what performance I can get. I'll get back to you when I finish.

burntsushi 4y ago

Here are your benchmarks to try: https://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/ https://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/ If you respond, please provide instructions to reproduce your measurements for a Linux machine. Why do you even have to write one in the first place? If C# is such a natural choice, why hasn't it already been done?

maldev 4y ago
Powershell actually ships one! I think you have a good point. I was going to build my own as C# ships alot of configuration options that can DRASTICALLY improve speed, which arn't on by default. But, we can test Redmonds version and get at least a decent idea of if it's suitable. I'll run some tests on that and get back to you in an hour or so. I'll use the same tests you have on https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/benchsuite/runs/2016-09-20-ubuntu1604-ec2/raw.csv https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/blob/master/benchsuite... My testing will be on my Dev VM, in a WSL container on ubuntu 22.04, targeting a built linux kernel. With powershell from the Microsoft blobs they ship for linux. And Ripgrep from just Apt Install Ripgrep. With 5 warmup cycles for each.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  Please be sure to read my blog post that I linked very carefully. Benchmarking greps is rather difficult and quite subtle. Are you talking about findstr? If so, I'm not sure that's available on Linux. So it doesn't seem like a viable grep to me. If the program you want to be a grep only runs on Windows, then that isn't really viable. Also, Windows file system operations tend to be quite a bit slower than Linux. Also, where is the source for findstr?
  - maldev 4y ago
    Alright, so initial testing result. I'm not going to even bother putting into excel, RipGrep blew the hell out of Powershells built in stuff. Like, we're talking exponentially quicker, so well done. (3 minutes for Pwsh vs 2 seconds Ripgrep) But I don't think it's the fault of C# and I think it's the fault of some poor coding on redmonds side, and very good coding on your side. And since I have to make up 12 hours tomorrow at work, but have zero tickets. I'll probably go in and write a Grep utility in C# and I think I can get similar speed to the Rust implementation. C# is also cross platform as of a couple years ago, as well as is powershell. So my testing was running Powershell on linux against the newest linux kernel source code + the build artifacts.
    - majkinetor 4y ago
      You can't compare rg with other full RE engines. Try to repeat the test by switching its regex engine to use PCRE2 ( --pcre2 ).
      - burntsushi 4y ago
        What? Can you say more? In many cases, ripgrep's speed is due in part to integrations with the default regex engine that don't happen with PCRE2.
        majkinetor 4y ago
        Why would you compare C#/pwsh PCRE with somethign that is not PCRE and hence has different features. Compare with rg that has --pcre option set if you want to get real comparison.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        Why wouldn't you? The other poster hasn't even said which regex engine or which tool they're measuring. PCRE is absolutely a competitor to Rust's regex crate and it makes sense to compare them. If all you're doing is measuring the time it takes to find `foo` or `\w+_foo`, then the specific regex engine being used is just an implementation detail. I'm not saying that using --pcre2 is wrong. It is certainly a useful comparison. But using the default regex engine when the task is "measure a grep" is certainly not wrong either.
- burntsushi 4y ago
  And does findstr support regex?