I think this all underscores what I have been saying for some time, that there needs to be search/sort functionality for arrays built into the engine. Sure it can be done procedurally but the engine would handle it so much faster. I should submit a feature request or vote for an existing one.
Bob S > On Apr 22, 2015, at 08:15 , Tiemo Hollmann TB <toolb...@kestner.de> wrote: > > Hi Rick, > On my new and fast development machine the search is pretty fast and > optimization wouldn't be necessary. > But I am not sure, how it behaves on old and weak computers out there in the > wild. Perhaps I have to reactivate one of my old ones for testing. Splitting > into alphabetical parts is in my case not possible, because of the "contains" > search. > Thanks for your ideas > Tiemo > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] Im Auftrag > von Rick Harrison > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. April 2015 15:44 > An: How to use LiveCode > Betreff: Re: fastes way to search an array? > > Hi Tiemo, > > What is the average and worst time that it takes to search your 20,000 record > array now? > Are there users other than you involved? Is it worth the time it will take > you to optimize the code for the faster execution? > > Now that you’ve hopefully answered these questions for yourself, and decided > it’s worth the effort, let’s more things forward a little more. > > Is your array pre-sorted alphabetically? (Assuming you are aiming for that > order.) If so, it might make sense to split your big array into smaller > alphabetically sorted arrays. Then you can test for which array to search > based on the first letter of the element you are searching for in the array, > and search the smaller array. > > Do a few timed tests with your array search so you can measure how much of an > improvement you have achieved. > > Good luck! > > Rick > > > >> On Apr 22, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Tiemo Hollmann TB <toolb...@kestner.de> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have an array with 20000 records, where I want to extract all >> records, which either "begins with" or "contains" a search string. >> >> Up to now I just loop thru the whole array, do the compare and extract >> the result records. I wonder, if there is a way to speed up this >> search? E.g., does it makes a difference, if I compare the string in >> the key or the data of the array while looping thru? I mean, would it >> make a difference, if I would create an "associative" array, where my >> search looks up in the keys of the array, either by looping thru the >> array, or by extracting first the keys of the array into a separate >> variable, instead in the data of the original array? >> >> Would it make a difference looping thru a variable, which just >> contains the keys of the array, instead of looping thru the complete >> array, because of the smaller "footprint" in the memory? >> >> Or shouldn't I care about these differences and just let LC makes its job? >> >> Any experiences welcome, >> >> Tiemo >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
