下面是一个使用re.compile的示例，在请求时速度超过50倍。

这一点与我在上面的评论中所说的是一样的，即当您的使用从编译缓存中获益不多时，使用re.compile可能是一个显著的优势。这种情况至少发生在一个特定的情况下(我在实践中遇到过)，即当以下所有情况都成立时:

您有很多regex模式(不仅仅是re._MAXCACHE，它目前的默认值是512)，以及 你经常使用这些正则表达式，而且 相同模式的连续使用之间被多个re._MAXCACHE其他正则表达式分隔，因此每个正则表达式在连续使用之间从缓存中刷新。

import re
import time

def setup(N=1000):
    # Patterns 'a.*a', 'a.*b', ..., 'z.*z'
    patterns = [chr(i) + '.*' + chr(j)
                    for i in range(ord('a'), ord('z') + 1)
                    for j in range(ord('a'), ord('z') + 1)]
    # If this assertion below fails, just add more (distinct) patterns.
    # assert(re._MAXCACHE < len(patterns))
    # N strings. Increase N for larger effect.
    strings = ['abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'] * N
    return (patterns, strings)

def without_compile():
    print('Without re.compile:')
    patterns, strings = setup()
    print('searching')
    count = 0
    for s in strings:
        for pat in patterns:
            count += bool(re.search(pat, s))
    return count

def without_compile_cache_friendly():
    print('Without re.compile, cache-friendly order:')
    patterns, strings = setup()
    print('searching')
    count = 0
    for pat in patterns:
        for s in strings:
            count += bool(re.search(pat, s))
    return count

def with_compile():
    print('With re.compile:')
    patterns, strings = setup()
    print('compiling')
    compiled = [re.compile(pattern) for pattern in patterns]
    print('searching')
    count = 0
    for s in strings:
        for regex in compiled:
            count += bool(regex.search(s))
    return count

start = time.time()
print(with_compile())
d1 = time.time() - start
print(f'-- That took {d1:.2f} seconds.\n')

start = time.time()
print(without_compile_cache_friendly())
d2 = time.time() - start
print(f'-- That took {d2:.2f} seconds.\n')

start = time.time()
print(without_compile())
d3 = time.time() - start
print(f'-- That took {d3:.2f} seconds.\n')

print(f'Ratio: {d3/d1:.2f}')

我在笔记本电脑上获得的示例输出(Python 3.7.7):

With re.compile:
compiling
searching
676000
-- That took 0.33 seconds.

Without re.compile, cache-friendly order:
searching
676000
-- That took 0.67 seconds.

Without re.compile:
searching
676000
-- That took 23.54 seconds.

Ratio: 70.89

I didn't bother with timeit as the difference is so stark, but I get qualitatively similar numbers each time. Note that even without re.compile, using the same regex multiple times and moving on to the next one wasn't so bad (only about 2 times as slow as with re.compile), but in the other order (looping through many regexes), it is significantly worse, as expected. Also, increasing the cache size works too: simply setting re._MAXCACHE = len(patterns) in setup() above (of course I don't recommend doing such things in production as names with underscores are conventionally “private”) drops the ~23 seconds back down to ~0.7 seconds, which also matches our understanding.

有趣的是，编译对我来说确实更有效(Win XP上的Python 2.5.2):

import re
import time

rgx = re.compile('(\w+)\s+[0-9_]?\s+\w*')
str = "average    2 never"
a = 0

t = time.time()

for i in xrange(1000000):
    if re.match('(\w+)\s+[0-9_]?\s+\w*', str):
    #~ if rgx.match(str):
        a += 1

print time.time() - t

按原样运行上述代码一次，并以相反的方式运行两个if行，编译后的正则表达式的速度将提高一倍

Ubuntu 22.04:

$ python --version
Python 3.10.6

$ for x in 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000; do python -m timeit -n $x -s 'import re' 're.match("[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{4}", "123-123-1234")'; done
1 loop, best of 5: 972 nsec per loop
:0: UserWarning: The test results are likely unreliable. The worst time (186 usec) was more than four times slower than the best time (972 nsec).
10 loops, best of 5: 819 nsec per loop
:0: UserWarning: The test results are likely unreliable. The worst time (13.9 usec) was more than four times slower than the best time (819 nsec).
100 loops, best of 5: 763 nsec per loop
1000 loops, best of 5: 699 nsec per loop
10000 loops, best of 5: 653 nsec per loop
100000 loops, best of 5: 655 nsec per loop
1000000 loops, best of 5: 656 nsec per loop

$ for x in 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000; do python -m timeit -n $x -s 'import re' 'r = re.compile("[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{4}")' 'r.match("123-123-1234")'; done
1 loop, best of 5: 985 nsec per loop
:0: UserWarning: The test results are likely unreliable. The worst time (134 usec) was more than four times slower than the best time (985 nsec).
10 loops, best of 5: 775 nsec per loop
:0: UserWarning: The test results are likely unreliable. The worst time (13.9 usec) was more than four times slower than the best time (775 nsec).
100 loops, best of 5: 756 nsec per loop
1000 loops, best of 5: 701 nsec per loop
10000 loops, best of 5: 704 nsec per loop
100000 loops, best of 5: 654 nsec per loop
1000000 loops, best of 5: 651 nsec per loop

FWIW:

$ python -m timeit -s "import re" "re.match('hello', 'hello world')"
100000 loops, best of 3: 3.82 usec per loop

$ python -m timeit -s "import re; h=re.compile('hello')" "h.match('hello world')"
1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.26 usec per loop

因此，如果您将经常使用同一个正则表达式，可能值得执行re.compile(特别是对于更复杂的正则表达式)。

反对过早优化的标准论点适用，但如果您怀疑regexp可能成为性能瓶颈，我不认为使用re.compile会真正失去多少清晰度/直接性。

更新:

在Python 3.6(我怀疑上述计时是使用Python 2.x完成的)和2018硬件(MacBook Pro)下，我现在得到以下计时:

% python -m timeit -s "import re" "re.match('hello', 'hello world')"
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.661 usec per loop

% python -m timeit -s "import re; h=re.compile('hello')" "h.match('hello world')"
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.285 usec per loop

% python -m timeit -s "import re" "h=re.compile('hello'); h.match('hello world')"
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.65 usec per loop

% python --version
Python 3.6.5 :: Anaconda, Inc.

我还添加了一个案例(注意最后两次运行之间的引号差异)，表明re.match(x，…)从字面上[大致]等价于re.compile(x).match(…)，即似乎没有发生编译表示的幕后缓存。

我真的很尊重上面所有的答案。在我看来 是的!当然，使用re.compile而不是一次又一次地编译正则表达式是值得的。

使用re.compile可以使代码更加动态，因为您可以调用已经编译好的正则表达式，而不是一次又一次地编译。这对你有好处:

处理器的努力 时间复杂度。 使正则表达式通用。(可以在findall, search, match中使用) 并使您的程序看起来很酷。

例子:

  example_string = "The room number of her room is 26A7B."
  find_alpha_numeric_string = re.compile(r"\b\w+\b")

在Findall中使用

 find_alpha_numeric_string.findall(example_string)

在搜索中使用

  find_alpha_numeric_string.search(example_string)

类似地，您可以将它用于:Match和Substitute

(几个月后)很容易在re.match周围添加自己的缓存， 或者其他任何事情——

""" Re.py: Re.match = re.match + cache  
    efficiency: re.py does this already (but what's _MAXCACHE ?)
    readability, inline / separate: matter of taste
"""

import re

cache = {}
_re_type = type( re.compile( "" ))

def match( pattern, str, *opt ):
    """ Re.match = re.match + cache re.compile( pattern ) 
    """
    if type(pattern) == _re_type:
        cpat = pattern
    elif pattern in cache:
        cpat = cache[pattern]
    else:
        cpat = cache[pattern] = re.compile( pattern, *opt )
    return cpat.match( str )

# def search ...

一个wibni，如果:cachehint(size=)， cacheinfo() -> size, hits, nclear…