Why is lookahead (sometimes) faster than capturing?

Question

This question is inspired by this other one.

Comparing s/,(\\d)/$1/ to s/,(?=\\d)//: the former uses a capture group to replace only the di

Answer 1

As always, when you want to know which of two pieces of code works faster, you have to test it:

#!/usr/bin/perl

use 5.012;
use warnings;
use Benchmark qw;

say "Extreme ,,,:";
my $Text = ',' x (my $LEN = 512);
cmpthese my $TIME = -10, my $CMP = {
    capture => \&capture,
    lookahead => \&lookahead,
};

say "\nExtreme ,0,0,0:";
$Text = ',0' x $LEN;
cmpthese $TIME, $CMP;

my $P = 0.01;
say "\nMixed (@{[$P * 100]}% zeros):";
my $zeros = $LEN * $P;
$Text = ',' x ($LEN - $zeros) . ',0' x $zeros;
cmpthese $TIME, $CMP;

sub capture {
    local $_ = $Text;
    s/,(\d)/$1/;
}

sub lookahead {
    local $_ = $Text;
    s/,(?=\d)//;
}

The benchmark tests three different cases:

1. Only ','
2. Only ',0'
3. 1% ',0', rest ','

On my machine and with my perl version, it produces these results:

Extreme ,,,:
             Rate   capture lookahead
capture   23157/s        --       -1%
lookahead 23362/s        1%        --

Extreme ,0,0,0:
               Rate   capture lookahead
capture    419476/s        --      -65%
lookahead 1200465/s      186%        --

Mixed (1% zeros):
             Rate   capture lookahead
capture   22013/s        --       -4%
lookahead 22919/s        4%        --

These results substantiates the assumption that the look-ahead version is significantly faster than the capturing, except for the case of almost only commas. And it is indeed not very surprising as PSIAlt already explained in his comment.

regards, Matthias