Quote:
Originally Posted by atom0s
Yeah there is a lot of room for improvement. My method was more aimed towards making use of C++11 features (to try them out and such) as well as being more maintainable as well as async which I needed for my project that I use it in.
Implementing Boyer Moore will definitely be a bit faster though.  |
Actually a couple of those methods have been tested here: https://github.com/learn-more/findpattern-bench
BMH was second place when I checked (57ms):
Code:
FindPattern benchmark
Page size: 4096, allocating 22 pages (including 2 guard pages).
Running tests on 9 different implementations
===========
Running M-i-K-e
ran outside the area
FAILED
===========
Running Trippeh
Finding pattern 0 x 1000 took 1774.23 ms.
Finding pattern 1 x 1000 took 1905.49 ms.
===========
Running Trippeh v2
Finding pattern 0 x 1000 took 81.864 ms.
Finding pattern 1 x 1000 took 81.937 ms.
===========
Running Trippeh v3
Failed, cheating with the pattern length!
FAILED
===========
Running learn_more
Finding pattern 0 x 1000 took 204.665 ms.
Finding pattern 1 x 1000 took 164.068 ms.
===========
Running learn_more v2
Finding pattern 0 x 1000 took 82.226 ms.
Finding pattern 1 x 1000 took 82.679 ms.
===========
Running afffsdd
Finding pattern 0 x 1000 took 40.943 ms.
Finding pattern 1 x 1000 took 40.968 ms.
===========
Running DarthTon
Finding pattern 0 x 1000 took 56.974 ms.
Finding pattern 1 x 1000 took 57.045 ms.
===========
Running kokole
Finding pattern 0 x 1000 took 122.41 ms.
Finding pattern 1 x 1000 took 122.646 ms.
Done.
Press any key to continue . . .
Although it really does depend on what you're scanning/how long it is. I prefer a linear search because the code is shorter and it's still pretty fast.