Notice

See also this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/21708215 which was the base for the EDIT 2 at the bottom here.

I've augmented the loop to 1000000 to get a better timing measure.

This is my Python timing:

real    0m2.038suser    0m2.009ssys     0m0.024s

Here's an equivalent of your code, just a bit prettier:

#include <regex>#include <vector>#include <string>std::vector<std::string> split(const std::string &s, const std::regex &r){    return {        std::sregex_token_iterator(s.begin(), s.end(), r, -1),        std::sregex_token_iterator()    };}int main(){    const std::regex r(" +");    for(auto i=0; i < 1000000; ++i)       split("a b c", r);    return 0;}

Timing:

real    0m5.786suser    0m5.779ssys     0m0.005s

This is an optimization to avoid construction/allocation of vector and string objects:

#include <regex>#include <vector>#include <string>void split(const std::string &s, const std::regex &r, std::vector<std::string> &v){    auto rit = std::sregex_token_iterator(s.begin(), s.end(), r, -1);    auto rend = std::sregex_token_iterator();    v.clear();    while(rit != rend)    {        v.push_back(*rit);        ++rit;    }}int main(){    const std::regex r(" +");    std::vector<std::string> v;    for(auto i=0; i < 1000000; ++i)       split("a b c", r, v);    return 0;}

Timing:

real    0m3.034suser    0m3.029ssys     0m0.004s

This is near a 100% performance improvement.

The vector is created before the loop, and can grow its memory in the first iteration. Afterwards there's no memory deallocation by clear(), the vector maintains the memory and construct strings in-place.

Another performance increase would be to avoid construction/destruction std::string completely, and hence, allocation/deallocation of its objects.

This is a tentative in this direction:

#include <regex>#include <vector>#include <string>void split(const char *s, const std::regex &r, std::vector<std::string> &v){    auto rit = std::cregex_token_iterator(s, s + std::strlen(s), r, -1);    auto rend = std::cregex_token_iterator();    v.clear();    while(rit != rend)    {        v.push_back(*rit);        ++rit;    }}

Timing:

real    0m2.509suser    0m2.503ssys     0m0.004s

An ultimate improvement would be to have a std::vector of const char * as return, where each char pointer would point to a substring inside the original s c string itself. The problem is that, you can't do that because each of them would not be null terminated (for this, see usage of C++1y string_ref in a later sample).

This last improvement could also be achieved with this:

#include <regex>#include <vector>#include <string>void split(const std::string &s, const std::regex &r, std::vector<std::string> &v){    auto rit = std::cregex_token_iterator(s.data(), s.data() + s.length(), r, -1);    auto rend = std::cregex_token_iterator();    v.clear();    while(rit != rend)    {        v.push_back(*rit);        ++rit;    }}int main(){    const std::regex r(" +");    std::vector<std::string> v;    for(auto i=0; i < 1000000; ++i)       split("a b c", r, v); // the constant string("a b c") should be optimized                             // by the compiler. I got the same performance as                             // if it was an object outside the loop    return 0;}

I've built the samples with clang 3.3 (from trunk) with -O3. Maybe other regex libraries are able to perform better, but in any case, allocations/deallocations are frequently a performance hit.

Boost.Regex

This is the boost::regex timing for the c string arguments sample:

real    0m1.284suser    0m1.278ssys     0m0.005s

Same code, boost::regex and std::regex interface in this sample are identical, just needed to change the namespace and include.

Best wishes for it to get better over time, C++ stdlib regex implementations are in their infancy.

EDIT

For sake of completion, I've tried this (the above mentioned "ultimate improvement" suggestion) and it didn't improved performance of the equivalent std::vector<std::string> &v version in anything:

#include <regex>#include <vector>#include <string>template<typename Iterator> class intrusive_substring{private:    Iterator begin_, end_;public:    intrusive_substring(Iterator begin, Iterator end) : begin_(begin), end_(end) {}    Iterator begin() {return begin_;}    Iterator end() {return end_;}};using intrusive_char_substring = intrusive_substring<const char *>;void split(const std::string &s, const std::regex &r, std::vector<intrusive_char_substring> &v){    auto rit = std::cregex_token_iterator(s.data(), s.data() + s.length(), r, -1);    auto rend = std::cregex_token_iterator();    v.clear(); // This can potentially be optimized away by the compiler because               // the intrusive_char_substring destructor does nothing, so               // resetting the internal size is the only thing to be done.               // Formerly allocated memory is maintained.    while(rit != rend)    {        v.emplace_back(rit->first, rit->second);        ++rit;    }}int main(){    const std::regex r(" +");    std::vector<intrusive_char_substring> v;    for(auto i=0; i < 1000000; ++i)       split("a b c", r, v);    return 0;}

This has to do with the array_ref and string_ref proposal. Here's a sample code using it:

#include <regex>#include <vector>#include <string>#include <string_ref>void split(const std::string &s, const std::regex &r, std::vector<std::string_ref> &v){    auto rit = std::cregex_token_iterator(s.data(), s.data() + s.length(), r, -1);    auto rend = std::cregex_token_iterator();    v.clear();    while(rit != rend)    {        v.emplace_back(rit->first, rit->length());        ++rit;    }}int main(){    const std::regex r(" +");    std::vector<std::string_ref> v;    for(auto i=0; i < 1000000; ++i)       split("a b c", r, v);    return 0;}

It will also be cheaper to return a vector of string_ref rather than string copies for the case of split with vector return.

EDIT 2

This new solution is able to get output by return. I have used Marshall Clow's string_view (string_ref got renamed) libc++ implementation found at https://github.com/mclow/string_view.

#include <string>#include <string_view>#include <boost/regex.hpp>#include <boost/range/iterator_range.hpp>#include <boost/iterator/transform_iterator.hpp>using namespace std;using namespace std::experimental;using namespace boost;string_view stringfier(const cregex_token_iterator::value_type &match) {    return {match.first, static_cast<size_t>(match.length())};}using string_view_iterator =    transform_iterator<decltype(&stringfier), cregex_token_iterator>;iterator_range<string_view_iterator> split(string_view s, const regex &r) {    return {        string_view_iterator(            cregex_token_iterator(s.begin(), s.end(), r, -1),            stringfier        ),        string_view_iterator()    };}int main() {    const regex r(" +");    for (size_t i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {        split("a b c", r);    }}

Timing:

real    0m0.385suser    0m0.385ssys     0m0.000s

Note how faster this is compared to previous results. Of course, it's not filling a vector inside the loop (nor matching anything in advance probably too), but you get a range anyway, which you can range over with range-based for, or even use it to fill a vector.

As ranging over the iterator_range creates string_views over an original string(or a null terminated string), this gets very lightweight, never generating unnecessary string allocations.

Just to compare using this split implementation but actually filling a vector we could do this:

int main() {    const regex r(" +");    vector<string_view> v;    v.reserve(10);    for (size_t i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {        copy(split("a b c", r), back_inserter(v));        v.clear();    }}

This uses boost range copy algorithm to fill the vector in each iteration, the timing is:

real    0m1.002suser    0m0.997ssys     0m0.004s

As can be seen, no much difference in comparison with the optimized string_view output param version.

Note also there's a proposal for a std::split that would work like this.

For optimizations, in general, you want to avoid two things:

• burning away CPU cycles for unnecessary stuff
• waiting idly for something to happen (memory read, disk read, network read, ...)

The two can be antithetic as sometimes it ends up being faster computing something than caching all of it in memory... so it's a game of balance.

Let's analyze your code:

std::vector<std::string> split(const std::string &s){    static const std::regex rsplit(" +"); // only computed once    // search for first occurrence of rsplit    auto rit = std::sregex_token_iterator(s.begin(), s.end(), rsplit, -1);    auto rend = std::sregex_token_iterator();    // simultaneously:    // - parses "s" from the second to the past the last occurrence    // - allocates one `std::string` for each match... at least! (there may be a copy)    // - allocates space in the `std::vector`, possibly multiple times    auto res = std::vector<std::string>(rit, rend);    return res;}

Can we do better ? Well, if we could reuse existing storage instead of keeping allocating and deallocating memory, we should see a significant improvement [1]:

// Overwrites 'result' with the matches, returns the number of matches// (note: 'result' is never shrunk, but may be grown as necessary)size_t split(std::string const& s, std::vector<std::string>& result){    static const std::regex rsplit(" +"); // only computed once    auto rit = std::cregex_token_iterator(s.begin(), s.end(), rsplit, -1);    auto rend = std::cregex_token_iterator();    size_t pos = 0;    // As long as possible, reuse the existing strings (in place)    for (size_t max = result.size();         rit != rend && pos != max;         ++rit, ++pos)    {        result[pos].assign(rit->first, rit->second);    }    // When more matches than existing strings, extend capacity    for (; rit != rend; ++rit, ++pos) {        result.emplace_back(rit->first, rit->second);    }    return pos;} // split

In the test that you perform, where the number of submatches is constant across iterations, this version is unlikely to be beaten: it will only allocate memory on the first run (both for rsplit and result) and then keep reusing existing memory.

[1]: Disclaimer, I have only proved this code to be correct I have not tested it (as Donald Knuth would say).

How about this verion? It is no regex, but it solves the split pretty fast ...

#include <vector>#include <string>#include <algorithm>size_t split2(const std::string& s, std::vector<std::string>& result){    size_t count = 0;    result.clear();    std::string::const_iterator p1 = s.cbegin();    std::string::const_iterator p2 = p1;    bool run = true;    do    {        p2 = std::find(p1, s.cend(), ' ');        result.push_back(std::string(p1, p2));        ++count;        if (p2 != s.cend())        {            p1 = std::find_if(p2, s.cend(), [](char c) -> bool            {                return c != ' ';            });        }        else run = false;    } while (run);    return count;}int main(){    std::vector<std::string> v;    std::string s = "a b c";    for (auto i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)        split2(s, v);     return 0;}

$ time splittest.exe

real 0m0.132suser 0m0.000ssys 0m0.109s