# $file $needle_bit_offset $needle_bit_length $repetitio +ns ./bitstrstr test.dat 100000000 2000 +10 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 1.6/10 = 0.16ms
Update:
$ for i in 16 20 30 40 60 100 200 400 1000 3000 10000; do echo $i; ./b +itstrstr test.dat 100000000 $i 10; done 16 needle found at 164016, expected at 100000000 in 1.1/10 = 0.11ms 20 needle found at 949378, expected at 100000000 in 1.8/10 = 0.18ms 30 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 1018.4/10 = 101.84 +ms 40 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 38/10 = 3.8ms 60 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 924.1/10 = 92.41ms 100 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 12/10 = 1.2ms 200 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 6.2/10 = 0.62ms 400 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 3.7/10 = 0.37ms 1000 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 2.3/10 = 0.23ms 3000 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 0.9/10 = 0.09ms 10000 needle found at 100000000, expected at 100000000 in 0.4/10 = 0.04ms
In reply to Re^13: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing (long) bit-strings.
by salva
in thread [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |