Comments on: Some more tweaks to my Python script http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/ Because FLOSS is handy, isn't it? Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:51:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: isilanes http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-148 isilanes Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:54:42 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-148 @PJ: I just posted the full code of the last version. It is available at my <a href="http://isilanes.org/soft/bhs/bhs.php" rel="nofollow">home page</a>, as well as commented in <a href="/2008.03/project-bhs/" rel="nofollow">a new post</a>. @PJ: I just posted the full code of the last version. It is available at my home page, as well as commented in a new post.

]]> By: Project BHS | handyfloss http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-147 Project BHS | handyfloss Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:49:56 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-147 [...] outlined in some previous posts[1,2,3,4], I have been playing around with a piece of Python code to process some log files. The log files [...] [...] outlined in some previous posts[1,2,3,4], I have been playing around with a piece of Python code to process some log files. The log files [...]

]]> By: isilanes http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-132 isilanes Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:56:54 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-132 <i>"How about posting the full text of v11 ?"</i> Thanks for pointing out... I will. “How about posting the full text of v11 ?”

Thanks for pointing out… I will.

]]> By: PJ http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-131 PJ Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:41:53 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-131 How about posting the full text of v11 ? How about posting the full text of v11 ?

]]> By: Justin http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-130 Justin Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:03:24 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-130 It would have probably been faster if you weren't pre-filtering the lines... I made a post here http://www.bouncybouncy.net/ramblings/posts/regex_with_named_groups/ explaining what I was trying to say in the comments :) It would have probably been faster if you weren’t pre-filtering the lines…

I made a post here http://www.bouncybouncy.net/ramblings/posts/regex_with_named_groups/

explaining what I was trying to say in the comments :)

]]> By: isilanes http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-129 isilanes Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:00:45 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-129 <b>@Justin</b>(3): I just tried your first suggestion, and it seems to be a bit slower, not faster (Probably for the reasons I give in (5) ). @Justin(3): I just tried your first suggestion, and it seems to be a bit slower, not faster (Probably for the reasons I give in (5) ).

]]> By: isilanes http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-128 isilanes Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:43:41 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-128 <b>@Justin</b>(3): I will try your first suggestion, but it is not guaranteed that it saves time. In Version 9 maybe it could, but probably not in Version 10+. Right now it is testing a boolean 100% of the times, plus re.search an additional 50% of the times. What you propose is to remove one of the two tests (the boolean), and do the re.search the 100% of the times. If re.search and boolean are equally fast, your solution is a brilliant way of speeding things up by a 50% (to 100%, down from 150%). But the question is whether 2 boolean tests are slower than one re.search. Empiric tests will tell... The second suggestion, I need time to digest the RE :^) <b>@all</b>: I am learning a lot from your comments, folks. Thanks! @Justin(3): I will try your first suggestion, but it is not guaranteed that it saves time. In Version 9 maybe it could, but probably not in Version 10+. Right now it is testing a boolean 100% of the times, plus re.search an additional 50% of the times. What you propose is to remove one of the two tests (the boolean), and do the re.search the 100% of the times. If re.search and boolean are equally fast, your solution is a brilliant way of speeding things up by a 50% (to 100%, down from 150%). But the question is whether 2 boolean tests are slower than one re.search. Empiric tests will tell…

The second suggestion, I need time to digest the RE :^)

@all: I am learning a lot from your comments, folks. Thanks!

]]> By: Justin http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-127 Justin Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:28:13 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-127 grr, it ate the comment again :( grr, it ate the comment again :(

]]> By: Justin http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-126 Justin Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:08 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-126 try: <code> cre = search_cre(line) if cre: credit = float(cre.group(1)) </code> The other thing I talked about, you can do cpattern = r'total_credit>(?P<cre>[^<]+)(?P<os>[^<]+)<' pattern = "(%s)|(%s)" % (cpattern, opattern) and then just match on that, and use groupdict() try:

cre = search_cre(line)
if cre:
credit = float(cre.group(1))

The other thing I talked about, you can do
cpattern = r’total_credit>(?P<cre>[^<]+)(?P<os>[^<]+)<’

pattern = “(%s)|(%s)” % (cpattern, opattern)

and then just match on that, and use groupdict()

]]> By: isilanes http://handyfloss.net/2008.02/some-more-tweaks-to-my-python-script/comment-page-1/#comment-125 isilanes Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:04:24 +0000 http://handyfloss.net/?p=299#comment-125 Point taken! Point taken!

]]>