Re^14: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing (long) bit-strings.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^15: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing (long) bit-strings. by salva (Canon) on Mar 31, 2015 at 13:28 UTC
$ for i in 99999996 99999997 99999998 99999999; do for j in 1999 2001 +2002 2003 2004; do echo $i $j; ./bitstrstr test.dat $i $j 100; done; +done 99999996 1999 needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 11.7/100 = 0.117ms 99999996 2001 needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 11.7/100 = 0.117ms 99999996 2002 needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 11.6/100 = 0.116ms 99999996 2003 needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 12.1/100 = 0.121ms 99999996 2004 needle found at 99999996, expected at 99999996 in 12/100 = 0.12ms 99999997 1999 needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.5/100 = 0.115ms 99999997 2001 needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 13.2/100 = 0.132ms 99999997 2002 needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.5/100 = 0.115ms 99999997 2003 needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.8/100 = 0.118ms 99999997 2004 needle found at 99999997, expected at 99999997 in 11.6/100 = 0.116ms 99999998 1999 needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 911.9/100 = 9.119ms 99999998 2001 needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 12.2/100 = 0.122ms 99999998 2002 needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 13.2/100 = 0.132ms 99999998 2003 needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 11.7/100 = 0.117ms 99999998 2004 needle found at 99999998, expected at 99999998 in 12.6/100 = 0.126ms 99999999 1999 needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12/100 = 0.12ms 99999999 2001 needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 912.1/100 = 9.121ms 99999999 2002 needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12.5/100 = 0.125ms 99999999 2003 needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12.6/100 = 0.126ms 99999999 2004 needle found at 99999999, expected at 99999999 in 12.2/100 = 0.122ms [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^16: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing (long) bit-strings. by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 31, 2015 at 13:44 UTC
You're pre-shifting the entire haystack and/or entire needle to align them before searching? (And not counting the time that takes?) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked	[reply]
Re^17: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing (long) bit-strings. by salva (Canon) on Mar 31, 2015 at 13:51 UTC
Yes and no. My code is pre-aligning the needle to a byte boundary, but it never takes advantage of that... actually, it is aligning it on the wrong side!	[reply]
Re^18: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing (long) bit-strings. by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 31, 2015 at 14:10 UTC