Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. C# puzzle....

C# puzzle....

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
csharpperformancequestion
20 Posts 11 Posters 8 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Member_14774770

    Wrong Forum! Here are few right places to ask the QN or to discuss it. 1.C# Discussion Boards[^] 2.The Weird and The Wonderful[^]

    J Offline
    J Offline
    Jorgen Andersson
    wrote on last edited by
    #11

    No, it's ok. Read the sticky on top: The Lounge[^] Point2: Technical discussions are welcome...

    Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • Greg UtasG Greg Utas

      I'm just an old C++ dinosaur, so my guess is that B and D are the fastest, followed by A and C, and finally the indecipherable twaddle of E--unless it's some kind of secret code for "Hint: you're looking for a single character and therefore don't have to construct "~", in which case it's probably faster than A and C but slower than B and D.

      Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles

      OriginalGriffO Offline
      OriginalGriffO Offline
      OriginalGriff
      wrote on last edited by
      #12

      Greg Utas wrote:

      finally the indecipherable twaddle of E--unless it's some kind of secret code for "Hint: you're looking for a single character and therefore don't have to construct "~"

      Nope: it's saying "Look for this using a binary comparison, rather than using a culture or shift specific sort order" - basically "compare strings as byte arrays" but using 16 bit values. In theory, this should be much quicker than a non-ordinal comparison as you don't have to deal with "special cases" or "'t' == 'T'", and most processors have machine code instructions for byte based searching and comparing.

      "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

      "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
      "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt

      Greg UtasG 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Member_14774770

        Wrong Forum! Here are few right places to ask the QN or to discuss it. 1.C# Discussion Boards[^] 2.The Weird and The Wonderful[^]

        OriginalGriffO Offline
        OriginalGriffO Offline
        OriginalGriff
        wrote on last edited by
        #13

        Jorgen is right - this isn't a question seeking help, it's a "Hey! look at this!" discussion.

        "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

        "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
        "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt

        N 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J James Curran

          (I was torn between putting these here or in the C# forum, but it not really a serious question...) Given a simple string

          		const string \_str = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
          

          put the following equivalent code blocks in order of their speed:

          	if ( \_str.Contains("~")) {....}				// A
          	if ( \_str.Contains('~')) {....}				// B
          	if ( \_str.IndexOf("~") >= 0)   {....}		// C
          	if ( \_str.IndexOf('~') >= 0)   {....}		// D
          	if ( \_str.IndexOf("~", StringComparison.Ordinal) >= 0)  {....}    //E
          

          Hint: there are three tiers --- One is the clear winning. Two others are about the same, significantly behind, and the last two are about the same, *way* behind the others.

          Truth, James

          C Offline
          C Offline
          CPallini
          wrote on last edited by
          #14

          After close examination, the fastest option is 'skip that block'. :rolleyes:

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Mario Vernari

            In my experience, the speed measurements at the start of an app are always polluted by the runtime initialization. That is, it might look that "A" takes longer than "B", where actually does not. Typically, I copy the same piece of code two or three times, then I take the last results. Have a try, maybe the results will change, maybe not.

            N Offline
            N Offline
            Nelek
            wrote on last edited by
            #15

            Mario Vernari wrote:

            Typically, I copy the same piece of code two or three times, then I take the last results.

            I use sleep 5 seconds, then go for it.

            M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

              Greg Utas wrote:

              finally the indecipherable twaddle of E--unless it's some kind of secret code for "Hint: you're looking for a single character and therefore don't have to construct "~"

              Nope: it's saying "Look for this using a binary comparison, rather than using a culture or shift specific sort order" - basically "compare strings as byte arrays" but using 16 bit values. In theory, this should be much quicker than a non-ordinal comparison as you don't have to deal with "special cases" or "'t' == 'T'", and most processors have machine code instructions for byte based searching and comparing.

              "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

              Greg UtasG Offline
              Greg UtasG Offline
              Greg Utas
              wrote on last edited by
              #16

              Next time I can't decipher some twaddle, I'll know who to turn to. :laugh:

              Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles

              <p><a href="https://github.com/GregUtas/robust-services-core/blob/master/README.md">Robust Services Core</a>
              <em>The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.</em></p>

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J James Curran

                (I was torn between putting these here or in the C# forum, but it not really a serious question...) Given a simple string

                		const string \_str = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
                

                put the following equivalent code blocks in order of their speed:

                	if ( \_str.Contains("~")) {....}				// A
                	if ( \_str.Contains('~')) {....}				// B
                	if ( \_str.IndexOf("~") >= 0)   {....}		// C
                	if ( \_str.IndexOf('~') >= 0)   {....}		// D
                	if ( \_str.IndexOf("~", StringComparison.Ordinal) >= 0)  {....}    //E
                

                Hint: there are three tiers --- One is the clear winning. Two others are about the same, significantly behind, and the last two are about the same, *way* behind the others.

                Truth, James

                F Offline
                F Offline
                F ES Sitecore
                wrote on last edited by
                #17

                It might well depend on the string being searched and what is being searched.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Mario Vernari

                  In my experience, the speed measurements at the start of an app are always polluted by the runtime initialization. That is, it might look that "A" takes longer than "B", where actually does not. Typically, I copy the same piece of code two or three times, then I take the last results. Have a try, maybe the results will change, maybe not.

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  Jorgen Andersson
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #18

                  Mario Vernari wrote:

                  In my experience, the speed measurements at the start of an app are always polluted by the runtime initialization.

                  Not just that, but also caching, task switching etc. There is a really good article here on how to get consistent test results: Performance Tests: Precise Run Time Measurements with System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch[^]

                  Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • G Garth J Lancaster

                    Upvoted for 'cheating' being scientific - there's nothing wrong with empirical proof, its exactely what I thought when I saw the question, ie, 'why guess' ..

                    N Offline
                    N Offline
                    Nish Nishant
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #19

                    Thanks, good way of looking at it I suppose.

                    Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

                      Jorgen is right - this isn't a question seeking help, it's a "Hey! look at this!" discussion.

                      "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

                      N Offline
                      N Offline
                      Nish Nishant
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #20

                      Also one of the more interesting posts here in recent times.

                      Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups