"Instr" vs "string.find()"? FIGHT!

BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Beginners Area/"Instr" vs "string.find()"? FIGHT!

Grisu

(Posted 2006) [#1]

Hi!

Just found out out that you can use string.find() as a kind of replacement for Instr.

1.
Has anyone done speed test with that already. Is find() any faster?

2.
Is it possible to add a starting position for a search with find too?

I really have a lot of Instr() usage in my 8000 lines app.
But before I replace Instr(), I'd like to be sure about this.

Local s:String="This is a Test string..."
Print "Find result: "+s.Find("Test")
Print "Instr result: "+Instr(s,"Test")

Grisu

Jake L.

(Posted 2006) [#2]

Yes, the syntax is:

Find:Int( subString:String,startIndex=0 )

unlike Instr, Find returns -1 if not found, 0 is the first char. Also there's Findlast:

FindLast:Int( subString:String,startIndex=0 )

Don't know about the speed...

Jake

klepto2

(Posted 2006) [#3]

hi,
in fact Instr uses the String intern Method Find() with the only exception, that the result of Instr is zero baased, as Find is -1 based.

The Speed is almost the same (in non DebugMode)

SuperStrict

Local Test:String = "This is a Test"
Local Time:Int = MilliSecs()

For Local I:Int = 0 To 999999
	Test.Find("Test")
Next

Print (MilliSecs() -Time)

Time = MilliSecs()	


For Local I:Int = 0 To 999999
	Instr(Test,"Test",1)
Next

Print (MilliSecs() - Time)

For Local I:Int = 0 To Test.Length - 1
	Print Test.Find("Test" , I) + " : " + Instr(Test,"Test",I)
Next

Grisu

(Posted 2006) [#4]

Thanks guys.
Find seems to be faster.

Every little speed increase helps, so I think I'll have to recode my stuff.

Brucey

(Posted 2006) [#5]

Yeah. Throw away that retro module and move on :-)

It would certainly make sense that Find would be slightly faster than Instr, given that Instr is making a call to Find anyways.