mal wrote: > Just for compares: would you mind running the search=20 > routines in mxTextTools on the same machine ? > > searching for "spam" in a string padded with "spaz" (1000 bytes on > > each side of the target): > >=20 > > string.find 0.112 ms texttools.find 0.080 ms > > sre8.search 0.059 > > pre.search 0.122 > >=20 > > unicode.find 0.130 > > sre16.search 0.065 > >=20 > > same test, without any false matches (padded with "-"): > >=20 > > string.find 0.035 ms texttools.find 0.083 ms > > sre8.search 0.050 > > pre.search 0.116 > >=20 > > unicode.find 0.031 > > sre16.search 0.055 >=20 > Those results are probably due to the fact that string.find > does a brute force search. If it would do a last match char > first search or even Boyer-Moore (this only pays off for long > search targets) then it should be a lot faster than [s|p]re. does the TextTools algorithm work with arbitrary character set sizes, btw? </F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4