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。

(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.

对我来说，re.compile的最大好处是能够将正则表达式的定义与其使用分开。

即使是一个简单的表达式，如0|[1-9][0-9]*(以10为基数，不带前导零的整数)，也可能非常复杂，以至于您宁愿不重新输入它，检查是否有任何拼写错误，然后在开始调试时重新检查是否有拼写错误。另外，使用像num或num_b10这样的变量名比0|[1-9][0-9]*更好。

当然可以存储字符串并将它们传递给re.match;然而，这就不那么容易读了:

num = "..."
# then, much later:
m = re.match(num, input)

与编译:

num = re.compile("...")
# then, much later:
m = num.match(input)

虽然它很接近，但当重复使用时，第二句的最后一行感觉更自然、更简单。

除了表演。

使用compile帮助我区分的概念 1. 模块(re), 2. 正则表达式对象 3.匹配对象 当我开始学习正则表达式的时候

#regex object
regex_object = re.compile(r'[a-zA-Z]+')
#match object
match_object = regex_object.search('1.Hello')
#matching content
match_object.group()
output:
Out[60]: 'Hello'
V.S.
re.search(r'[a-zA-Z]+','1.Hello').group()
Out[61]: 'Hello'

作为补充，我做了一个详尽的备忘单模块re供您参考。

regex = {
'brackets':{'single_character': ['[]', '.', {'negate':'^'}],
            'capturing_group' : ['()','(?:)', '(?!)' '|', '\\', 'backreferences and named group'],
            'repetition'      : ['{}', '*?', '+?', '??', 'greedy v.s. lazy ?']},
'lookaround' :{'lookahead'  : ['(?=...)', '(?!...)'],
            'lookbehind' : ['(?<=...)','(?<!...)'],
            'caputuring' : ['(?P<name>...)', '(?P=name)', '(?:)'],},
'escapes':{'anchor'          : ['^', '\b', '$'],
          'non_printable'   : ['\n', '\t', '\r', '\f', '\v'],
          'shorthand'       : ['\d', '\w', '\s']},
'methods': {['search', 'match', 'findall', 'finditer'],
              ['split', 'sub']},
'match_object': ['group','groups', 'groupdict','start', 'end', 'span',]
}

使用第二个版本时，正则表达式在使用之前会进行编译。如果你要多次执行它，最好先编译它。如果不是每次编译都匹配一次性的是好的。