(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…

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.

抛开性能差异不考虑，使用re.compile和使用编译后的正则表达式对象进行匹配(任何与正则表达式相关的操作)使得Python运行时的语义更加清晰。

我有过调试一些简单代码的痛苦经历:

compare = lambda s, p: re.match(p, s)

然后我用compare in

[x for x in data if compare(patternPhrases, x[columnIndex])]

其中patternPhrases应该是一个包含正则表达式字符串的变量，x[columnIndex]是一个包含字符串的变量。

我有麻烦，patternPhrases不匹配一些预期的字符串!

但是如果我使用re.compile形式:

compare = lambda s, p: p.match(s)

然后在

[x for x in data if compare(patternPhrases, x[columnIndex])]

Python会抱怨“字符串没有匹配属性”，因为在compare中通过位置参数映射，x[columnIndex]被用作正则表达式!其实我的意思是

compare = lambda p, s: p.match(s)

在我的例子中，使用re.compile更明确地表达了正则表达式的目的，当它的值对肉眼隐藏时，因此我可以从Python运行时检查中获得更多帮助。

因此，我这一课的寓意是，当正则表达式不仅仅是字面字符串时，那么我应该使用re.compile让Python帮助我断言我的假设。

我想说的是，预编译在概念上和“字面上”(如在“文学编程”中)都是有利的。看看这段代码片段:

from re import compile as _Re

class TYPO:

  def text_has_foobar( self, text ):
    return self._text_has_foobar_re_search( text ) is not None
  _text_has_foobar_re_search = _Re( r"""(?i)foobar""" ).search

TYPO = TYPO()

在你的应用程序中，你可以这样写:

from TYPO import TYPO
print( TYPO.text_has_foobar( 'FOObar ) )

this is about as simple in terms of functionality as it can get. because this is example is so short, i conflated the way to get _text_has_foobar_re_search all in one line. the disadvantage of this code is that it occupies a little memory for whatever the lifetime of the TYPO library object is; the advantage is that when doing a foobar search, you'll get away with two function calls and two class dictionary lookups. how many regexes are cached by re and the overhead of that cache are irrelevant here.

将其与更常见的风格进行比较，如下所示:

import re

class Typo:

  def text_has_foobar( self, text ):
    return re.compile( r"""(?i)foobar""" ).search( text ) is not None

在应用中:

typo = Typo()
print( typo.text_has_foobar( 'FOObar ) )

我很乐意承认我的风格在python中是非常不寻常的，甚至可能是有争议的。然而，在更接近python的使用方式的示例中，为了进行一次匹配，我们必须实例化一个对象，进行三次实例字典查找，并执行三次函数调用;此外，当使用超过100个正则表达式时，我们可能会遇到重新缓存的麻烦。此外，正则表达式被隐藏在方法体中，这在大多数情况下并不是一个好主意。

可以说，每一个措施的子集——有针对性的，别名的import语句;别名方法(如适用);减少函数调用和对象字典查找——可以帮助减少计算和概念的复杂性。

我自己刚试过。对于从字符串中解析数字并对其求和的简单情况，使用编译后的正则表达式对象的速度大约是使用re方法的两倍。

正如其他人指出的那样，re方法(包括re.compile)在以前编译的表达式缓存中查找正则表达式字符串。因此，在正常情况下，使用re方法的额外成本只是缓存查找的成本。

然而，检查代码，缓存被限制为100个表达式。这就引出了一个问题，缓存溢出有多痛苦?该代码包含正则表达式编译器的内部接口re.sre_compile.compile。如果我们调用它，就绕过了缓存。结果表明，对于一个基本的正则表达式，例如r'\w+\s+([0-9_]+)\s+\w*'，它要慢两个数量级。

下面是我的测试:

#!/usr/bin/env python
import re
import time

def timed(func):
    def wrapper(*args):
        t = time.time()
        result = func(*args)
        t = time.time() - t
        print '%s took %.3f seconds.' % (func.func_name, t)
        return result
    return wrapper

regularExpression = r'\w+\s+([0-9_]+)\s+\w*'
testString = "average    2 never"

@timed
def noncompiled():
    a = 0
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        m = re.match(regularExpression, testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

@timed
def compiled():
    a = 0
    rgx = re.compile(regularExpression)
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

@timed
def reallyCompiled():
    a = 0
    rgx = re.sre_compile.compile(regularExpression)
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a


@timed
def compiledInLoop():
    a = 0
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        rgx = re.compile(regularExpression)
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

@timed
def reallyCompiledInLoop():
    a = 0
    for x in xrange(10000):
        rgx = re.sre_compile.compile(regularExpression)
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

r1 = noncompiled()
r2 = compiled()
r3 = reallyCompiled()
r4 = compiledInLoop()
r5 = reallyCompiledInLoop()
print "r1 = ", r1
print "r2 = ", r2
print "r3 = ", r3
print "r4 = ", r4
print "r5 = ", r5
</pre>
And here is the output on my machine:
<pre>
$ regexTest.py 
noncompiled took 4.555 seconds.
compiled took 2.323 seconds.
reallyCompiled took 2.325 seconds.
compiledInLoop took 4.620 seconds.
reallyCompiledInLoop took 4.074 seconds.
r1 =  2000000
r2 =  2000000
r3 =  2000000
r4 =  2000000
r5 =  20000

'reallyCompiled'方法使用内部接口，绕过缓存。注意，在每个循环迭代中编译的代码只迭代了10,000次，而不是一百万次。

这个答案可能姗姗来迟，但却是一个有趣的发现。如果你打算多次使用regex，使用compile真的可以节省你的时间(这在文档中也有提到)。下面你可以看到，当直接调用match方法时，使用编译后的正则表达式是最快的。将一个编译好的正则表达式传递给re.match会使它更慢，而将re.match与patter字符串传递在中间的某个地方。

>>> ipr = r'\D+((([0-2][0-5]?[0-5]?)\.){3}([0-2][0-5]?[0-5]?))\D+'
>>> average(*timeit.repeat("re.match(ipr, 'abcd100.10.255.255 ')", globals={'ipr': ipr, 're': re}))
1.5077415757028423
>>> ipr = re.compile(ipr)
>>> average(*timeit.repeat("re.match(ipr, 'abcd100.10.255.255 ')", globals={'ipr': ipr, 're': re}))
1.8324008992184038
>>> average(*timeit.repeat("ipr.match('abcd100.10.255.255 ')", globals={'ipr': ipr, 're': re}))
0.9187896518778871