For simple things is it better to use the translate
function on the premise that it is less CPU intensive or is regexp_replace
the way to go?
This question comes forth from How can I replace brackets to hyphens within Oracle REGEXP_REPLACE function?
REPLACE() replaces one string with another string. Therefore, if a string contains multiple characters, each character must be in the same order. TRANSLATE() on the other hand, replaces each character one by one, regardless of the order of those characters.
The REGEXP_REPLACE function is used to return source_char with every occurrence of the regular expression pattern replaced with replace_string. The string returned is in the same character set as source_char. It returns VARCHAR2 if the first argument is not a LOB and returns CLOB if the first argument is a LOB.
REGEXP_SUBSTR extends the functionality of the SUBSTR function by letting you search a string for a regular expression pattern. It is also similar to REGEXP_INSTR , but instead of returning the position of the substring, it returns the substring itself.
I think you're running into simple optimization. The regexp expression is so expensive to compute that the result is cached in the hope that it will be used again in the future. If you actually use distinct strings to convert, you will see that the modest translate is naturally faster because it is its specialized function.
Here's my example, running on 11.1.0.7.0
:
SQL> DECLARE
2 TYPE t IS TABLE OF VARCHAR2(4000);
3 l t;
4 l_level NUMBER := 1000;
5 l_time TIMESTAMP;
6 l_char VARCHAR2(4000);
7 BEGIN
8 -- init
9 EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'ALTER SESSION SET PLSQL_OPTIMIZE_LEVEL=2';
10 SELECT dbms_random.STRING('p', 2000)
11 BULK COLLECT
12 INTO l FROM dual
13 CONNECT BY LEVEL <= l_level;
14 -- regex
15 l_time := systimestamp;
16 FOR i IN 1 .. l.count LOOP
17 l_char := regexp_replace(l(i), '[]()[]', '-', 1, 0);
18 END LOOP;
19 dbms_output.put_line('regex :' || (systimestamp - l_time));
20 -- tranlate
21 l_time := systimestamp;
22 FOR i IN 1 .. l.count LOOP
23 l_char := translate(l(i), '()[]', '----');
24 END LOOP;
25 dbms_output.put_line('translate :' || (systimestamp - l_time));
26 END;
27 /
regex :+000000000 00:00:00.979305000
translate :+000000000 00:00:00.238773000
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed
on 11.2.0.3.0
:
regex :+000000000 00:00:00.617290000
translate :+000000000 00:00:00.138205000
Conclusion: In general I suspect translate
will win.
For SQL, I tested this with the following script:
set timing on
select sum(length(x)) from (
select translate('(<FIO>)', '()[]', '----') x
from (
select *
from dual
connect by level <= 2000000
)
);
select sum(length(x)) from (
select regexp_replace('[(<FIO>)]', '[\(\)\[]|\]', '-', 1, 0) x
from (
select *
from dual
connect by level <= 2000000
)
);
and found that the performance of translate
and regexp_replace
were almost always the same, but it could be that the cost of the other operations is overwhelming the cost of the functions I'm trying to test.
Next, I tried a PL/SQL version:
set timing on
declare
x varchar2(100);
begin
for i in 1..2500000 loop
x := translate('(<FIO>)', '()[]', '----');
end loop;
end;
/
declare
x varchar2(100);
begin
for i in 1..2500000 loop
x := regexp_replace('[(<FIO>)]', '[\(\)\[]|\]', '-', 1, 0);
end loop;
end;
/
Here the translate
version takes just under 10 seconds, while the regexp_replace
version around 0.2 seconds -- around 2 orders of magnitude faster(!)
Based on this result, I will be using regular expressions much more often in my performance critical code -- both SQL and PL/SQL.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With