Re: Number of BBCode params and permutation
Reply #32 –
Oh, wait, the comparison includes the preg_match in the pc_next_permutation test and not in the other?
Ugh, I really need to get my damn computer back. This is killing me. I know that the proposed permute function works but now I want to test it against dougiefresh's. If his works and does so with much less resources and a limitless number of parameters, seems like his would be the way to go.
Re: Number of BBCode params and permutation
Reply #33 –
I really want to know, looking at a large number of posts with BBC, how often would the preg condition not match within X tries. Where X is whatever would add any measurable amount of time. Would be nice to have a couple of forums to be able to do some data analysis on.
Re: Number of BBCode params and permutation
Reply #34 –
I only did a simple test of performance on that, using quote blocks.
Had a message with 10 quotes, some normal, some nested, with a couple of them using all 3 parameters out of order. Ran 3 loops of 100.
Old permute function: Avg 3.73421 seconds in parse bbc and .19034 seconds in pre parse
New permute function: Avg 3.7125 seconds in parse bbc and .18801 seconds in pre parse
Net: no difference, should have checked memory but for 3 parameters they should be about equal per previous postings based on 3 parameters.
Re: Number of BBCode params and permutation
Reply #38 –
Personally I like what we have, and its likely faster anyway.
Re: Number of BBCode params and permutation
Reply #39 –
The only thing I think might make sense to pull is the sorting of the parameters so there is no need to put the regular expression in a loop.
Re: Number of BBCode params and permutation
Reply #43 –
Have you tried ordering the parameters? Just wondering if that had any positive effect.