On 11/23/04 10:17 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
If any of you have time to improve the buffering method below I'd be interested in any significant changes to your test results.
If we want the buffering method to be as fast as possible, so as to test the method itself rather than the script that runs it, then we can speed up the script by rewriting method #3 like this:
put the millisecs into t
--
put 0 into tWordCount3
open file tFile for text read
put empty into tBuffer
repeat
read from file tFile for 32000
put tBuffer before it -- stores only 1 line from previous read
if it is empty then exit repeat
if the number of lines in it > 1 then
put last line of it into tBuffer
delete last line of it
else
put empty into tBuffer
end if
--
repeat for each line l in it
add the number of words of l to tWordCount3
end repeat
end repeat
--
put the millisecs - t into t3
close file tFile
--
--This script assumes that the last line in each 32K block is incomplete, which will almost always be the case. If the line isn't incomplete, it doesn't hurt anything to treat it like it is.
Problem is, I'm getting a slightly different word count than your original method. I didn't debug that because it's getting late, but it is off by just a few chars and I suspect it has to do with the very last line in the file. At any rate, the idea is that the difference in speed is pretty high; in my test the original took about 850 milliseconds and the revised one above took about 125. This would probably change your benchmarks a bit.
I added a "close file" command for completeness. If I get a chance, I'll try to figure out why my count is off, if someone else doesn't do it first.
-- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
