_findfirst and fopen very slow
-
I have about 1800 text files in a dir and their number is slowly growing (several files in a day). The size of a file is about 40 kB. I need to enumerate all the file with the ".states" extension, open the file, check to see if there is a line that starts with a particular sequence of 4 chars and if the line exists, I save the line in a std::vector. I use the following code, but it takes very long time at the first run (the subsequent runs are very fast):
struct \_finddata\_t fd; long hFile; if((hFile=\_findfirst("\*.states", &fd))== -1L) return; // File not found do { FILE \*f= fopen(fd.name, "rS"); while(fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f)) { if(0 == \_strnicmp(buf, "ABCD", 4)) { Save buf in a std::vector break; } } fclose(f); } while(\_findnext(hFile, &fd) == 0); \_findclose(hFile);Is there any way to speedup the code? If I merge all the files in a single file, I solve the problem, but I prefer to keep all the original files.
-
I have about 1800 text files in a dir and their number is slowly growing (several files in a day). The size of a file is about 40 kB. I need to enumerate all the file with the ".states" extension, open the file, check to see if there is a line that starts with a particular sequence of 4 chars and if the line exists, I save the line in a std::vector. I use the following code, but it takes very long time at the first run (the subsequent runs are very fast):
struct \_finddata\_t fd; long hFile; if((hFile=\_findfirst("\*.states", &fd))== -1L) return; // File not found do { FILE \*f= fopen(fd.name, "rS"); while(fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f)) { if(0 == \_strnicmp(buf, "ABCD", 4)) { Save buf in a std::vector break; } } fclose(f); } while(\_findnext(hFile, &fd) == 0); \_findclose(hFile);Is there any way to speedup the code? If I merge all the files in a single file, I solve the problem, but I prefer to keep all the original files.
Are the files that were in that folder on Monday (for example) still there on Tuesday? In other words, are you processing every file in that folder, or just the new ones? Keep in mind that file I/O is arguably one of the slowest operations on a computer. It can be sped up to a marginal degree, but you are ultimately at the mercy of the disk.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
Are the files that were in that folder on Monday (for example) still there on Tuesday? In other words, are you processing every file in that folder, or just the new ones? Keep in mind that file I/O is arguably one of the slowest operations on a computer. It can be sped up to a marginal degree, but you are ultimately at the mercy of the disk.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
David Crow wrote:
Are the files that were in that folder on Monday still there on Tuesday?
Yes.
In other words, are you processing every file in that folder, or just the new ones?
Every file in that folder.
So do the files that were processed on a Monday need to be processed again the next day?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
I have about 1800 text files in a dir and their number is slowly growing (several files in a day). The size of a file is about 40 kB. I need to enumerate all the file with the ".states" extension, open the file, check to see if there is a line that starts with a particular sequence of 4 chars and if the line exists, I save the line in a std::vector. I use the following code, but it takes very long time at the first run (the subsequent runs are very fast):
struct \_finddata\_t fd; long hFile; if((hFile=\_findfirst("\*.states", &fd))== -1L) return; // File not found do { FILE \*f= fopen(fd.name, "rS"); while(fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f)) { if(0 == \_strnicmp(buf, "ABCD", 4)) { Save buf in a std::vector break; } } fclose(f); } while(\_findnext(hFile, &fd) == 0); \_findclose(hFile);Is there any way to speedup the code? If I merge all the files in a single file, I solve the problem, but I prefer to keep all the original files.
If you comment out the 'Save buf in a std::vector' code, is it still unacceptably slow?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
If you comment out the 'Save buf in a std::vector' code, is it still unacceptably slow?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
jeron1 wrote:
If you comment out the 'Save buf in a std::vector' code, is it still unacceptably slow?
Yes; that code takes a totally negligible amount of time. If I only do the search, without opening the file, it's very fast, but if I also open the file, the code is terribly slow.
-
So do the files that were processed on a Monday need to be processed again the next day?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
David Crow wrote:
So do the files that were processed on a Monday need to be processed again the next day?
Yes. All those files can be thought as a database that I need to read every time I start the program.
Have you considered doing the processing in a (background) worker thread?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
jeron1 wrote:
If you comment out the 'Save buf in a std::vector' code, is it still unacceptably slow?
Yes; that code takes a totally negligible amount of time. If I only do the search, without opening the file, it's very fast, but if I also open the file, the code is terribly slow.
Member 3648633 wrote:
If I only do the search, without opening the file
How can you search the contents of a file without first opening it?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
Have you considered doing the processing in a (background) worker thread?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
Member 3648633 wrote:
If I only do the search, without opening the file
How can you search the contents of a file without first opening it?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
That fact does not negate the need/use of a worker thread. Part of the program's slowness may be that of perception. By having a responsive UI (not saying that yours is), the perception that the program is running slow is minimized.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
jeron1 wrote:
If you comment out the 'Save buf in a std::vector' code, is it still unacceptably slow?
Yes; that code takes a totally negligible amount of time. If I only do the search, without opening the file, it's very fast, but if I also open the file, the code is terribly slow.
Maybe read the whole file at once as opposed to many fgets() calls, then do your string search in RAM?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
I have about 1800 text files in a dir and their number is slowly growing (several files in a day). The size of a file is about 40 kB. I need to enumerate all the file with the ".states" extension, open the file, check to see if there is a line that starts with a particular sequence of 4 chars and if the line exists, I save the line in a std::vector. I use the following code, but it takes very long time at the first run (the subsequent runs are very fast):
struct \_finddata\_t fd; long hFile; if((hFile=\_findfirst("\*.states", &fd))== -1L) return; // File not found do { FILE \*f= fopen(fd.name, "rS"); while(fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f)) { if(0 == \_strnicmp(buf, "ABCD", 4)) { Save buf in a std::vector break; } } fclose(f); } while(\_findnext(hFile, &fd) == 0); \_findclose(hFile);Is there any way to speedup the code? If I merge all the files in a single file, I solve the problem, but I prefer to keep all the original files.
Hi, Some comments: 1.) Reading files may be slightly faster if you read using a multiple of the drive sector size or read it all at once. 2.) If you've ever wondered why file-backed cache implementations save files into a hierarchical folder structure it's because enumerating 10,000 files in a single folder may cause a small performance hit. If you plan on storing many thousands of files you may want to design a folder structure. Maybe something simple such as alphabetical A-C, D-F ... or something based on timestamp. This is not much of an issue on a modern SSD but old spindle drives take a performance hit. 3.) The code you have shown above is reading the file contents into a local buffer. You would get a huge performance boost by using the [MapViewOfFile function](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/memoryapi/nf-memoryapi-mapviewoffile) to map the file directly into your process space. Have a look at the [Creating a View Within a File](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/Memory/creating-a-view-within-a-file) sample. This sample is demonstrating how to take a large file and map only 1kb at a time into your process. Don't do that. You stated that your files are around ~40 kb so I'd recommend mapping the entire file into your process address space. I'd also recommend using two file mappings. While FileA is being processed you can have the operating system map FileB into your process. This would mitigate any latency caused by the i/o subsystem. The majority of your latency is between opening files. I highly recommend the second file mapping. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
-
I have about 1800 text files in a dir and their number is slowly growing (several files in a day). The size of a file is about 40 kB. I need to enumerate all the file with the ".states" extension, open the file, check to see if there is a line that starts with a particular sequence of 4 chars and if the line exists, I save the line in a std::vector. I use the following code, but it takes very long time at the first run (the subsequent runs are very fast):
struct \_finddata\_t fd; long hFile; if((hFile=\_findfirst("\*.states", &fd))== -1L) return; // File not found do { FILE \*f= fopen(fd.name, "rS"); while(fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f)) { if(0 == \_strnicmp(buf, "ABCD", 4)) { Save buf in a std::vector break; } } fclose(f); } while(\_findnext(hFile, &fd) == 0); \_findclose(hFile);Is there any way to speedup the code? If I merge all the files in a single file, I solve the problem, but I prefer to keep all the original files.
The more obvious answer is get whatever is saving the files to put the ones which contain your string ABCD out under a special name string. Then you don't have to search inside the file at all to find the files you want. Another obvious choice is have the files on a ramdisk as there isn't much data. The whole process seems a bit backward to me you are working on the reading code not the writing code.
In vino veritas
-
I have about 1800 text files in a dir and their number is slowly growing (several files in a day). The size of a file is about 40 kB. I need to enumerate all the file with the ".states" extension, open the file, check to see if there is a line that starts with a particular sequence of 4 chars and if the line exists, I save the line in a std::vector. I use the following code, but it takes very long time at the first run (the subsequent runs are very fast):
struct \_finddata\_t fd; long hFile; if((hFile=\_findfirst("\*.states", &fd))== -1L) return; // File not found do { FILE \*f= fopen(fd.name, "rS"); while(fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f)) { if(0 == \_strnicmp(buf, "ABCD", 4)) { Save buf in a std::vector break; } } fclose(f); } while(\_findnext(hFile, &fd) == 0); \_findclose(hFile);Is there any way to speedup the code? If I merge all the files in a single file, I solve the problem, but I prefer to keep all the original files.
I suspect that the reason for your program to run much faster on the second run is that modern drives cache a certain amount of data, and therefore don't need to rely on slow hardware for repeatedly reading the same files. In your code, you read from each file line by line. Internally, these reads will trigger a request to read some block (or multiple blocks) of data. While each of these blocks is probably cached to be used for consecutive reads, any read request requiring a new block will cause another, slow, access to the hard disk. You could speed this up by reading the whole file in a single operation: query its size, allocate a sufficiently large buffer, open as binary, and read the whole file into that buffer. Then your internal while loop can request each line from that buffer, which should be considerably faster.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
The more obvious answer is get whatever is saving the files to put the ones which contain your string ABCD out under a special name string. Then you don't have to search inside the file at all to find the files you want. Another obvious choice is have the files on a ramdisk as there isn't much data. The whole process seems a bit backward to me you are working on the reading code not the writing code.
In vino veritas
That's a good approach, but as I understand it the main task is not to find files that contain the string, but find all lines within these files containing it. A specific kind of filename wouldn't be enough. Your suggestion to include the writing into the problem solution is a good idea. However, if we do that, we might as well write all the data to a database. Retrieving the correct lines would then only require a simple SQL query.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
Hi, Some comments: 1.) Reading files may be slightly faster if you read using a multiple of the drive sector size or read it all at once. 2.) If you've ever wondered why file-backed cache implementations save files into a hierarchical folder structure it's because enumerating 10,000 files in a single folder may cause a small performance hit. If you plan on storing many thousands of files you may want to design a folder structure. Maybe something simple such as alphabetical A-C, D-F ... or something based on timestamp. This is not much of an issue on a modern SSD but old spindle drives take a performance hit. 3.) The code you have shown above is reading the file contents into a local buffer. You would get a huge performance boost by using the [MapViewOfFile function](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/memoryapi/nf-memoryapi-mapviewoffile) to map the file directly into your process space. Have a look at the [Creating a View Within a File](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/Memory/creating-a-view-within-a-file) sample. This sample is demonstrating how to take a large file and map only 1kb at a time into your process. Don't do that. You stated that your files are around ~40 kb so I'd recommend mapping the entire file into your process address space. I'd also recommend using two file mappings. While FileA is being processed you can have the operating system map FileB into your process. This would mitigate any latency caused by the i/o subsystem. The majority of your latency is between opening files. I highly recommend the second file mapping. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
-
That's a good approach, but as I understand it the main task is not to find files that contain the string, but find all lines within these files containing it. A specific kind of filename wouldn't be enough. Your suggestion to include the writing into the problem solution is a good idea. However, if we do that, we might as well write all the data to a database. Retrieving the correct lines would then only require a simple SQL query.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
You only need one instance to flag it as special who cares how many times it writes the special sequence after that. The process is to eliminate the mass of files that aren't of any interest by using the name. I am not changing anything other than the name of the file .. hardly complex or rocket science and much easier and much faster than a database connection :-)
In vino veritas
-
You only need one instance to flag it as special who cares how many times it writes the special sequence after that. The process is to eliminate the mass of files that aren't of any interest by using the name. I am not changing anything other than the name of the file .. hardly complex or rocket science and much easier and much faster than a database connection :-)
In vino veritas
I did not see the OP mention how many of the files do have that symbol. If a significant fraction of the files are affected, your solution would not help a lot.
leon de boer wrote:
much faster than a database connection
.. to implement, sure. But certainly not to execute. ;)
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)