Re: removeheaders

Tom Metro wrote:
> Mike Cappella wrote:
>>>> The diff below corrects these issues. I've only tested it with data 
>>>> that matches the first expression.
>>
>> I think the removeheaders optimization you posted can be further 
>> reduced...
> 
>

Exactly the kind of thing that needs to be proven. Good job.
.
.
.
> 
> Jun 24 06:48:54 host service[2531]: [ID 1234 word.word] Solaris message
>         Rate rh2 rh5 rh3 rh4 rh1
> rh2 165837/s  -- -1% -3% -3% -7%
> rh5 168350/s  2%  -- -2% -2% -6%
> rh3 171233/s  3%  2%  -- -0% -4%
> rh4 171527/s  3%  2%  0%  -- -4%
> rh1 178571/s  8%  6%  4%  4%  --
> 
> 
> In all cases rh2 (reduced) actually ends up being the slowest.
> 
> In the first two (supposedly most common) cases, the original is the 
> second slowest.

Of course the sad part is the Solaris machines are generally going to be 
the slowest now the optimizations makes them the losers :/. All those 
old Ultrasparc II's are going to be kicking around for years [I know 
because 4 of the hosts I support are on this vintage.]


> # consolidated + validation
> sub rh4 {
>     $_ = shift;
> 
>     s/^\w\w\w \d\d \d\d:\d\d:\d\d [^ ]+ ([^\[:]+(\[\d+\])?: )?(\[ID \d+( \w+\.\w+)?] )?//o;
>     return $_;
> }
>

This one is fine with me. [Other then the tears I shed for my little 
Netra t1 105 440mhz + 1gb ;) ]

-Mike