Re: FASTEST way to try all strings (a until ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ)
From: Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook] (Jay_Harlow_MVP_at_msn.com)
Date: 09/28/04
- Next message: dotNetDave: "RE: asp.net components"
- Previous message: Ian Coetzer: "RE: Datagrid question"
- In reply to: Cor Ligthert: "Re: FASTEST way to try all strings (a until ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:18:45 -0500
Cor,
> It will be a very huge table so I in my opinion.
If the OP is going to keep all or most of the entries in a table at one
time, then yes Bytes may be better.
However! I was going on creating one "value" & using it at a time. In which
case 17 Bytes is no "better" then 17 Chars...
Thanks for the additional
Jay
"Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%23oUrMNZpEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Jay,
>
> I was first going for the arraylist and the the stringbuilder as forever
> as you know, however
>
> Pieter told a to z and A to Z and space, that can be done as bytes
> 97 to 122 and 65 to 90 and 32.
>
> Pieter lives in Belgium which has the same code set as you and me and he
> told this explicitly because in Belgium is spoken Dutch and French (a very
> small minority German) and the French uses a lot of characters which are
> not ASCII however as far as I know in the standard 255 set (maybe can
> Pieter tell that).
>
> He told only the characters in the ASCII range so you can be sure that he
> as a Belg did that explicitly.
>
> It will be a very huge table so I in my opinion. I once did a test between
> a stringbuilder against a bytearray (however silly one because it needed
> chars, but somebody told his routine was faster so I made that to tell
> that everything can go faster) where the bytearray was twice as fast.
>
> There is in this case for sure only one byte needed instead of two. The
> only place you loose some bytes against the characterstring is as far as I
> can see when there are spaces at the end, however that will be a minority
> and everytime less.
>
> When it would be used, than it should be converted to a string, however
> that can even with ASCII in this case. (And this is probably an exception
> where this just fit)
>
> I think it will not be that big difference with you method at the moment,
> it uses at least than less memory I think and probably go faster.
>
> However just what I thought, never tested, so when I have made mistakes in
> this, tell it.
>
> :-)
>
> Cor
>
>
> "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow_MVP@msn.com>
>
>> Cor,
>> How would saving 17 bytes really be saving anything?
>>
>> How would an array of Byte be any faster then an array of Char?
>> Especially when I would expect the function that the OP is calling needs
>> a String? I agree if the OP's function needed an array of Byte, then an
>> array of Byte is needed, however the OP suggested Chars (A to Z, a to z
>> and space).
>>
>> My routine works directly with Unicode Chars there is no encoding
>> involved (an array of Byte would need an "expensive" Encoding object to
>> convert from Bytes to Chars or String.
>>
>> Just curious where you are coming from.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> "Cor Ligthert" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:Om0lZtWpEHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> Jay B.
>>>
>>> I think that an array of bytes would in this case be the fastest and
>>> also would help to minimize the used space.
>>>
>>> Cor
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
- Next message: dotNetDave: "RE: asp.net components"
- Previous message: Ian Coetzer: "RE: Datagrid question"
- In reply to: Cor Ligthert: "Re: FASTEST way to try all strings (a until ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
