Slacter Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Maybe something like this: test.vi search.vi The recursive VI approach along with the Build Array is not memory efficient. Seems a more complicated solution. My preference is the preallocation of arrays with the swap/cut method. Focusing exclusively on timing, it appears that about 80-90% of the time expense of these routines is taken up by the Search/Split String primitive. Even changing out the swap/cut method for a build array only increases processing time by 10%, whereas deleting the Search/Split String and replacing it with a constant zero on the case input reduces overall timing 80-90%. This shows that no real significant timing gains can be achieved without a focus on improving the primitive. EDIT: Ok, just read page 2 (duh, should make sure I remember to flip the page!) I did assume that the match could be anywhere in the string. Edited July 30, 2012 by Slacter Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.