Guido van Rossum wrote: > Which is exactly how s.find() wins this race. (I guess it loses when > it's found by having to do the "find" lookup.) Maybe string_contains > should just call string_find_internal()? I somehow suspected that "in" did some extra work in case the "find" failed; guess I should have looked at the code instead... I didn't really expect anyone to use a bad implementation of a brute-force algorithm (O(nm)) when the library already contained a reasonably good version of the same algorithm. > And then there's the question of how the re module gets to be faster > still; I suppose it doesn't bother with memcmp() at all. the benchmark cheats (a bit) -- it builds a state machine (KMP-style) in "compile", and uses that to search in O(n) time. that approach won't fly for "in" and find, of course, but it's definitely possible to make them run a lot faster than RE (i.e. O(n/m) for most cases)... but refactoring the contains code to use find_internal sounds like a good first step. any takers? </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