В случае, если функциональность имеет решающее значение для вашей системы, на самом деле выгодно использовать старый strstr
метод. std::search
Метод внутри algorithm
является самым медленным возможно. Я думаю, что создание этих итераторов занимает много времени.
Код, который я использовал для определения времени
#include <string>
#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <random>
#include <chrono>
std::string randomString( size_t len );
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
using namespace std::chrono;
const size_t haystacksCount = 200000;
std::string haystacks[haystacksCount];
std::string needle = "hello";
bool sink = true;
high_resolution_clock::time_point start, end;
duration<double> timespan;
int sizes[10] = { 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280, 5120, 10240 };
for(int s=0; s<10; ++s)
{
std::cout << std::endl << "Generating " << haystacksCount << " random haystacks of size " << sizes[s] << std::endl;
for(size_t i=0; i<haystacksCount; ++i)
{
haystacks[i] = randomString(sizes[s]);
}
std::cout << "Starting std::string.find approach" << std::endl;
start = high_resolution_clock::now();
for(size_t i=0; i<haystacksCount; ++i)
{
if(haystacks[i].find(needle) != std::string::npos)
{
sink = !sink; // useless action
}
}
end = high_resolution_clock::now();
timespan = duration_cast<duration<double>>(end-start);
std::cout << "Processing of " << haystacksCount << " elements took " << timespan.count() << " seconds." << std::endl;
std::cout << "Starting strstr approach" << std::endl;
start = high_resolution_clock::now();
for(size_t i=0; i<haystacksCount; ++i)
{
if(strstr(haystacks[i].c_str(), needle.c_str()))
{
sink = !sink; // useless action
}
}
end = high_resolution_clock::now();
timespan = duration_cast<duration<double>>(end-start);
std::cout << "Processing of " << haystacksCount << " elements took " << timespan.count() << " seconds." << std::endl;
std::cout << "Starting std::search approach" << std::endl;
start = high_resolution_clock::now();
for(size_t i=0; i<haystacksCount; ++i)
{
if(std::search(haystacks[i].begin(), haystacks[i].end(), needle.begin(), needle.end()) != haystacks[i].end())
{
sink = !sink; // useless action
}
}
end = high_resolution_clock::now();
timespan = duration_cast<duration<double>>(end-start);
std::cout << "Processing of " << haystacksCount << " elements took " << timespan.count() << " seconds." << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
std::string randomString( size_t len)
{
static const char charset[] = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
static const int charsetLen = sizeof(charset) - 1;
static std::default_random_engine rng(std::random_device{}());
static std::uniform_int_distribution<> dist(0, charsetLen);
auto randChar = [charset, &dist, &rng]() -> char
{
return charset[ dist(rng) ];
};
std::string result(len, 0);
std::generate_n(result.begin(), len, randChar);
return result;
}
Здесь я генерирую случайные haystacks
и ищу в них свои needle
. Счетчик стога сена установлен, но длина строк в каждом стоге сена увеличена с 10 в начале до 10240 в конце. Большую часть времени программа тратит на генерацию случайных строк, но этого и следовало ожидать.
Выход:
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 10
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00358503 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0022727 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0346258 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 20
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00480959 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00236199 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0586416 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 40
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0082571 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00341435 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0952996 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 80
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0148288 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00399263 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.175945 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 160
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0293496 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00504251 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.343452 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 320
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0522893 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00850485 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.64133 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 640
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.102082 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.00925799 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 1.26321 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 1280
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.208057 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0105039 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 2.57404 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 5120
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.798496 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0137969 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 10.3573 seconds.
Generating 200000 random haystacks of size 10240
Starting std::string.find approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 1.58171 seconds.
Starting strstr approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 0.0143111 seconds.
Starting std::search approach
Processing of 200000 elements took 20.4163 seconds.