Most efficient way to check if $string starts with $needle in perl

Question

Given two string variables $string and $needle in perl, what's the most efficient way to check whether $string starts with $needle.

• $string =~ /^\Q$needle\E/ is the closest match I could think of that does what is required but is the least efficient (by far) of the solutions I tried.
• index($string, $needle) == 0 works and is relatively efficient for some values of $string and $needle but needlessly searches for the needle in other positions (if not found at the start).
• substr($string, 0, length($needle)) eq $needle should be quite simple and efficient, but in most of my few tests is not more efficient than the previous one.

Is there a canonical way to do that in perl which I wouldn't be aware of or any way to optimise any of the above solutions?

(in my particular use case, $string and $needle are going to be different in each run, so precompiling a regexp is not an option).

---

Example of how to measure the performance of a given solution (here from a POSIX sh):

string='somewhat not so longish string' needle='somew'
time perl -e '
  ($n,$string,$needle) = @ARGV;
  for ($i=0;$i<$n;$i++) {

    index($string, $needle) == 0

  }' 10000000 "$string" "$needle"

With those values, index() performs better than substr()+eq with this system with perl 5.14.2, but with:

string="aaaaabaaaaabaaaaabaaaaabaaaaabaaaaab" needle="aaaaaa"

That's reversed.

Answer 1

How important is this, really? I did a number of benchmarks, and the index method averaged 0.68 microseconds per iteration; the regex method 1.14μs; the substr method 0.16μs. Even my worst-case scenarios (2250-char strings that were equal), index took 2.4μs, regex took 5.7μs, and substr took 0.5μs.

My advice is to write a library routine:

sub begins_with
{
    return substr($_[0], 0, length($_[1])) eq $_[1];
}

and focus your optimization efforts elsewhere.

UPDATE: Based on criticism of my "worst-case" scenario described above, I ran a new set of benchmarks with a 20,000-char randomly-generated string, comparing it against itself and against a string that differed only in the last byte.

For such long strings, the regex solution was by far the worst (a 20,000 character regex is hell): 105μs for the match success, 100μs for the match failure.

The index and substr solutions were still quite fast. index was 11.83μs / 11.86μs for success/failure, and substr was 4.09μs / 4.15μs. Moving the code to a separate function added about 0.222±0.05μs.

Benchmark code available at: http://codepaste.net/2k1y8e

I do not know the characteristics of @Stephane's data, but my advice stands.