tags:

views:

193

answers:

3
+2  A: 

Your code may access cs beyond the bounds of its allocation if cs is shorter than 4 characters.

A common optimisation for string search is to use the Boyer-Moore algorithm where you start looking in cs from the end of what would be ct. See the linked page for a full description of the algorithm.

Greg Hewgill
Good point, thank you. I updated my question.
Thank you for the link.
Keep in mind that the setup for Boyer-Moore might be expensive if cs is short and always changing. In that case, simpler code like yours might be faster (although it could still use some tweaking, such as moving the if..return 0 to after cs++ since it can't be true the first time since cs minimum is 10). Be sure to benchmark to measure what is really the fastest solution for your actual inputs.
joe snyder
Boyer-Moore will almost certainly be slower. Since the needle size is fixed at 5, both are O(n), and Boyer-Moore only really helps when the needle is long.
R..
+4  A: 

There are several fast string search algorithms. Try looking at Boyer-Moore (as already suggested by Greg Hewgill), Rabin-Karp and KMP algorithms.

If you need to search for many small patterns in the same large body of text, you can also try implementing a suffix tree or a suffix array. But these are IMHO somewhat harder to understand and implement correctly.

But beware, these techniques are very fast, but only give you an appreciable speedup if the strings involved are very large. You might not see an appreciable speedup for strings less than say a 1000 characters long.

EDIT:

If you are searching on the same text over and over again (i.e. the value of cs is always/often the same across calls), you will get a big speedup by using a suffix trie (Basically a trie of suffixes). Since your text is as small as 100 or 200 characters, you can use the simpler O(n^2) method to build the trie and then do multiple fast searches on it. Each search would require only 5 comparisons instead of the usual 5*200.

Edit 2:

As mentioned by caf's comment, C's strstr algorithm is implementations dependent. glibc uses a linear time algorithm which should be more or less as fast in practice as any of the methods I've mentioned. While the OP's method is asymptotically slower (O(N*m) instead of O(n) ), it is faster probably due to the fact that both n and m (the lengths of the pattern and the text) are very small and it does not have to do any of the long preprocessing in the glibc version.

MAK
Thank you for your answer. In my case cs is relatively short. I updated my question again. Looks like that I forgot to mention important points in my question.Looks like I might stick with simple code as also joe snyder pointed out.
The C standard does not specify which algorithm should be used for `strstr()` - it only specifies the functionality. glibc at least uses the linear complexity Two-Way algorithm: http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=string/str-two-way.h;h=87ed8a03668ce113db7d364dba3e96d69b516de9;hb=HEAD
caf
@caf: Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know glibc used a O(n) algorithm.
MAK
For what it's worth, glibc's O(n) algorithm is slower than the naive O(nm) algorithm for needle lengths up to about 40 bytes. Even more ridiculous, they special-case needles shorter than 32 bytes, but with a bad variant of Two-Way that's slower in all cases. Performance would be at least 2-3 times better in all real-world uses (and never worse than it is now) if they replaced the short needle case with the naive algorithm.
R..
+9  A: 

Reducing the number of comparisons will increase the speed of the search. Keep a running int of the string and compare it to a fixed int for the search term. If it matches compare the last character.

uint32_t term = ct[0] << 24 | ct[1] << 16 | ct[2] << 8 | ct[3];
uint32_t walk = cs[0] << 24 | cs[1] << 16 | cs[2] << 8 | cs[3];
int i = 0;

do {
  if ( term == walk && ct[4] == cs[4] ) { return i; } // or return cs or 1
  walk = ( walk << 8 ) | cs[4];
  cs += 1;
  i += 1;
} while ( cs[4] ); // assumes original cs was longer than ct
// return failure

Add checks for a short cs.

Edit:

Added fixes from comments. Thanks.

This could easily be adopted to use 64 bit values. You could store cs[4] and ct[4] in local variables instead of assuming the compiler will do that for you. You could add 4 to cs and ct before the loop and use cs[0] and ct[0] in the loop.

drawnonward
+1, this is basically the same idea as a Rabin-Karp. The variable `walk` acts as a rolling hash.
MAK
<< 0 isn't needed. i isn't needed; return 1 on a match or return 0 if you finish the loop. you can also test cs[4] at the end of the loop instead of the start, in case the first loop succeeds, since cs min length is guaranteed.
joe snyder
this will only be faster in certain conditions, ie, (probably only when there are many similar strings where only character at index 4 doesn't match. Since most of the time his original, if it doesn't match, it moves on, where as this always does a computation as well as a comparison (assuming we get rid of the i).
Keith Nicholas
You may want |, not ||
Joseph Quinsey
You must use `int32_t` to be portable
kaizer.se
You mean uint32_t. Result of left shift on signed int is undefined when it overflows.
R..