对我来说，re.compile的最大好处是能够将正则表达式的定义与其使用分开。

即使是一个简单的表达式，如0|[1-9][0-9]*(以10为基数，不带前导零的整数)，也可能非常复杂，以至于您宁愿不重新输入它，检查是否有任何拼写错误，然后在开始调试时重新检查是否有拼写错误。另外，使用像num或num_b10这样的变量名比0|[1-9][0-9]*更好。

当然可以存储字符串并将它们传递给re.match;然而，这就不那么容易读了:

num = "..."
# then, much later:
m = re.match(num, input)

与编译:

num = re.compile("...")
# then, much later:
m = num.match(input)

虽然它很接近，但当重复使用时，第二句的最后一行感觉更自然、更简单。

我自己刚试过。对于从字符串中解析数字并对其求和的简单情况，使用编译后的正则表达式对象的速度大约是使用re方法的两倍。

正如其他人指出的那样，re方法(包括re.compile)在以前编译的表达式缓存中查找正则表达式字符串。因此，在正常情况下，使用re方法的额外成本只是缓存查找的成本。

然而，检查代码，缓存被限制为100个表达式。这就引出了一个问题，缓存溢出有多痛苦?该代码包含正则表达式编译器的内部接口re.sre_compile.compile。如果我们调用它，就绕过了缓存。结果表明，对于一个基本的正则表达式，例如r'\w+\s+([0-9_]+)\s+\w*'，它要慢两个数量级。

下面是我的测试:

#!/usr/bin/env python
import re
import time

def timed(func):
    def wrapper(*args):
        t = time.time()
        result = func(*args)
        t = time.time() - t
        print '%s took %.3f seconds.' % (func.func_name, t)
        return result
    return wrapper

regularExpression = r'\w+\s+([0-9_]+)\s+\w*'
testString = "average    2 never"

@timed
def noncompiled():
    a = 0
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        m = re.match(regularExpression, testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

@timed
def compiled():
    a = 0
    rgx = re.compile(regularExpression)
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

@timed
def reallyCompiled():
    a = 0
    rgx = re.sre_compile.compile(regularExpression)
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a


@timed
def compiledInLoop():
    a = 0
    for x in xrange(1000000):
        rgx = re.compile(regularExpression)
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

@timed
def reallyCompiledInLoop():
    a = 0
    for x in xrange(10000):
        rgx = re.sre_compile.compile(regularExpression)
        m = rgx.match(testString)
        a += int(m.group(1))
    return a

r1 = noncompiled()
r2 = compiled()
r3 = reallyCompiled()
r4 = compiledInLoop()
r5 = reallyCompiledInLoop()
print "r1 = ", r1
print "r2 = ", r2
print "r3 = ", r3
print "r4 = ", r4
print "r5 = ", r5
</pre>
And here is the output on my machine:
<pre>
$ regexTest.py 
noncompiled took 4.555 seconds.
compiled took 2.323 seconds.
reallyCompiled took 2.325 seconds.
compiledInLoop took 4.620 seconds.
reallyCompiledInLoop took 4.074 seconds.
r1 =  2000000
r2 =  2000000
r3 =  2000000
r4 =  2000000
r5 =  20000

'reallyCompiled'方法使用内部接口，绕过缓存。注意，在每个循环迭代中编译的代码只迭代了10,000次，而不是一百万次。

下面是一个使用re.compile的示例，在请求时速度超过50倍。

这一点与我在上面的评论中所说的是一样的，即当您的使用从编译缓存中获益不多时，使用re.compile可能是一个显著的优势。这种情况至少发生在一个特定的情况下(我在实践中遇到过)，即当以下所有情况都成立时:

您有很多regex模式(不仅仅是re._MAXCACHE，它目前的默认值是512)，以及 你经常使用这些正则表达式，而且 相同模式的连续使用之间被多个re._MAXCACHE其他正则表达式分隔，因此每个正则表达式在连续使用之间从缓存中刷新。

import re
import time

def setup(N=1000):
    # Patterns 'a.*a', 'a.*b', ..., 'z.*z'
    patterns = [chr(i) + '.*' + chr(j)
                    for i in range(ord('a'), ord('z') + 1)
                    for j in range(ord('a'), ord('z') + 1)]
    # If this assertion below fails, just add more (distinct) patterns.
    # assert(re._MAXCACHE < len(patterns))
    # N strings. Increase N for larger effect.
    strings = ['abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'] * N
    return (patterns, strings)

def without_compile():
    print('Without re.compile:')
    patterns, strings = setup()
    print('searching')
    count = 0
    for s in strings:
        for pat in patterns:
            count += bool(re.search(pat, s))
    return count

def without_compile_cache_friendly():
    print('Without re.compile, cache-friendly order:')
    patterns, strings = setup()
    print('searching')
    count = 0
    for pat in patterns:
        for s in strings:
            count += bool(re.search(pat, s))
    return count

def with_compile():
    print('With re.compile:')
    patterns, strings = setup()
    print('compiling')
    compiled = [re.compile(pattern) for pattern in patterns]
    print('searching')
    count = 0
    for s in strings:
        for regex in compiled:
            count += bool(regex.search(s))
    return count

start = time.time()
print(with_compile())
d1 = time.time() - start
print(f'-- That took {d1:.2f} seconds.\n')

start = time.time()
print(without_compile_cache_friendly())
d2 = time.time() - start
print(f'-- That took {d2:.2f} seconds.\n')

start = time.time()
print(without_compile())
d3 = time.time() - start
print(f'-- That took {d3:.2f} seconds.\n')

print(f'Ratio: {d3/d1:.2f}')

我在笔记本电脑上获得的示例输出(Python 3.7.7):

With re.compile:
compiling
searching
676000
-- That took 0.33 seconds.

Without re.compile, cache-friendly order:
searching
676000
-- That took 0.67 seconds.

Without re.compile:
searching
676000
-- That took 23.54 seconds.

Ratio: 70.89

I didn't bother with timeit as the difference is so stark, but I get qualitatively similar numbers each time. Note that even without re.compile, using the same regex multiple times and moving on to the next one wasn't so bad (only about 2 times as slow as with re.compile), but in the other order (looping through many regexes), it is significantly worse, as expected. Also, increasing the cache size works too: simply setting re._MAXCACHE = len(patterns) in setup() above (of course I don't recommend doing such things in production as names with underscores are conventionally “private”) drops the ~23 seconds back down to ~0.7 seconds, which also matches our understanding.

作为一个替代答案，正如我看到之前没有提到的，我将继续引用Python 3文档:

您是应该使用这些模块级函数，还是应该获取模式并自己调用它的方法?如果在循环中访问正则表达式，预编译它将节省一些函数调用。在循环之外，由于内部缓存，没有太大区别。

有趣的是，编译对我来说确实更有效(Win XP上的Python 2.5.2):

import re
import time

rgx = re.compile('(\w+)\s+[0-9_]?\s+\w*')
str = "average    2 never"
a = 0

t = time.time()

for i in xrange(1000000):
    if re.match('(\w+)\s+[0-9_]?\s+\w*', str):
    #~ if rgx.match(str):
        a += 1

print time.time() - t

按原样运行上述代码一次，并以相反的方式运行两个if行，编译后的正则表达式的速度将提高一倍

根据Python文档:

序列

prog = re.compile(pattern)
result = prog.match(string)

等于

result = re.match(pattern, string)

但是，当表达式将在一个程序中多次使用时，使用re.compile()并保存生成的正则表达式对象以供重用会更有效。

所以我的结论是，如果你要为许多不同的文本匹配相同的模式，你最好预编译它。