Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:46:27 -0500 (EST) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet <andy@siliconlandmark.com> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Subject: Re: strcspn(3) complexity improvement Message-ID: <20050331183010.X52981@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> In-Reply-To: <20050331112549.GI71384@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20050330083435.GI75546@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050330183145.GB24465@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050331112549.GI71384@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Wed, 2005-Mar-30 10:31:45 -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: >> The real question I have is, how long does the string need to be before >> this is a win and how much does it hurt for typical string lengths? >> I've written code with strcspn that needed to perform well, but it was >> parsing 80-column punch card derived formats. > > I was thinking about this last night. The easy way is to generate random > "string" and "charset" arrays of varying length and time both strcspn() > variants - this gives you two two-dimensional surfaces showing timing > vs argument size. The difficulty is visualising the result and > deciding whether pairs of random strings are realistic. I would be tempted to use list traffic as the haystack and random words of differing lengths from the aspell dict for the needle. Andy | Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > | Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050331183010.X52981>