I want to read the entire table from an MS Access file and I'm trying to do it as fast as possible. When testing a big sample I found that the loop counter increases faster when it's reading the top records comparing to last records of the table. Here's a sample code that demonstrates this:
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
const
MaxRecords = 40000;
Step = 5000;
var
I, J: Integer;
Table: TADOTable;
T: Cardinal;
Ts: TCardinalDynArray;
begin
Table := TADOTable.Create(nil);
Table.ConnectionString :=
'Provider=Microsoft.ACE.OLEDB.12.0;'+
'Data Source=BigMDB.accdb;'+
'Mode=Read|Share Deny Read|Share Deny Write;'+
'Persist Security Info=False';
Table.TableName := 'Table1';
Table.Open;
J := 0;
SetLength(Ts, MaxRecords div Step);
T := GetTickCount;
for I := 1 to MaxRecords do
begin
Table.Next;
if ((I mod Step) = 0) then
begin
T := GetTickCount - T;
Ts[J] := T;
Inc(J);
T := GetTickCount;
end;
end;
Table.Free;
// Chart1.SeriesList[0].Clear;
// for I := 0 to Length(Ts) - 1 do
// begin
// Chart1.SeriesList[0].Add(Ts[I]/1000, Format(
// 'Records: %s %d-%d %s Duration:%f s',
// [#13, I * Step, (I + 1)*Step, #13, Ts[I]/1000]));
// end;
end;
And the result on my PC:
The table has two string fields, one double and one integer. It has no primary key nor index field. Why does it happen and how can I prevent it?
I can reproduce your results using an AdoQuery with an MS Sql Server dataset of similar size to yours.
However, after doing a bit of line-profiling, I think I've found the answer to this, and it's slightly counter-intuitive. I'm sure everyone who does
DB programming in Delphi is used to the idea that looping through a dataset tends to be much quicker if you surround the loop by calls to Disable/EnableControls. But who would bother to do that if there are no db-aware controls attached to the dataset?
Well, it turns out that in your situation, even though there are no DB-aware controls, the speed increases hugely if you use Disable/EnableControls regardless.
The reason is that TCustomADODataSet.InternalGetRecord in AdoDB.Pas contains this:
if ControlsDisabled then
RecordNumber := -2 else
RecordNumber := Recordset.AbsolutePosition;
and according to my line profiler, the while not AdoQuery1.Eof do AdoQuery1.Next loop spends 98.8% of its time executing the assignment
RecordNumber := Recordset.AbsolutePosition;
! The calculation of Recordset.AbsolutePosition is hidden, of course, on the "wrong side" of the Recordset interface, but the fact that the time to call it apparently increases the further you go into the recordset makes it reasonable imo to speculate that it's calculated by counting from the start of the recordset's data.
Of course, ControlsDisabled returns true if DisableControls has been called and not undone by a call to EnableControls. So, retest with the loop surrounded by Disable/EnableControls and hopefully you'll get a similar result to mine. It looks like you were right that the slowdown isn't related to memory allocations.
Using the following code:
procedure TForm1.btnLoopClick(Sender: TObject);
var
I: Integer;
T: Integer;
Step : Integer;
begin
Memo1.Lines.BeginUpdate;
I := 0;
Step := 4000;
if cbDisableControls.Checked then
AdoQuery1.DisableControls;
T := GetTickCount;
{.$define UseRecordSet}
{$ifdef UseRecordSet}
while not AdoQuery1.Recordset.Eof do begin
AdoQuery1.Recordset.MoveNext;
Inc(I);
if I mod Step = 0 then begin
T := GetTickCount - T;
Memo1.Lines.Add(IntToStr(I) + ':' + IntToStr(T));
T := GetTickCount;
end;
end;
{$else}
while not AdoQuery1.Eof do begin
AdoQuery1.Next;
Inc(I);
if I mod Step = 0 then begin
T := GetTickCount - T;
Memo1.Lines.Add(IntToStr(I) + ':' + IntToStr(T));
T := GetTickCount;
end;
end;
{$endif}
if cbDisableControls.Checked then
AdoQuery1.EnableControls;
Memo1.Lines.EndUpdate;
end;
I get the following results (with DisableControls not called except where noted):
Using CursorLocation = clUseClient
AdoQuery.Next AdoQuery.RecordSet AdoQuery.Next
.MoveNext + DisableControls
4000:157 4000:16 4000:15
8000:453 8000:16 8000:15
12000:687 12000:0 12000:32
16000:969 16000:15 16000:31
20000:1250 20000:16 20000:31
24000:1500 24000:0 24000:16
28000:1703 28000:15 28000:31
32000:1891 32000:16 32000:31
36000:2187 36000:16 36000:16
40000:2438 40000:0 40000:15
44000:2703 44000:15 44000:31
48000:3203 48000:16 48000:32
=======================================
Using CursorLocation = clUseServer
AdoQuery.Next AdoQuery.RecordSet AdoQuery.Next
.MoveNext + DisableControls
4000:1031 4000:454 4000:563
8000:1016 8000:468 8000:562
12000:1047 12000:469 12000:500
16000:1234 16000:484 16000:532
20000:1047 20000:454 20000:546
24000:1063 24000:484 24000:547
28000:984 28000:531 28000:563
32000:906 32000:485 32000:500
36000:1016 36000:531 36000:578
40000:1000 40000:547 40000:500
44000:968 44000:406 44000:562
48000:1016 48000:375 48000:547
Calling AdoQuery1.Recordset.MoveNext calls directly into the MDac/ADO layer, of
course, whereas AdoQuery1.Next involves all the overhead of the standard TDataSet
model. As Serge Kraikov said, changing the CursorLocation certainly makes a difference and doesn't exhibit the slowdown we noticed, though obviously it's significantly slower than using clUseClient and calling DisableControls. I suppose it depends on exactly what you're trying to do whether you can take advantage of the extra speed of using clUseClient with RecordSet.MoveNext.
When you open a table, ADO dataset internally creates special data structures to navigate dataset forward/backward - "dataset CURSOR". During navigation, ADO stores the list of already visited records to provide bidirectional navigation.
Seems ADO cursor code uses quadratic-time O(n2) algorithm to store this list.
But there are workaround - use server-side cursor:
Table.CursorLocation := clUseServer;
I tested your code using this fix and get linear fetch time - fetching every next chunk of records takes the same time as previous.
PS Some other data access libraries provides special "unidirectional" datasets - this datasets can traverse only forward and don't even store already traversed records - you get constant memory consumption and linear fetch time.
DAO is native to Access and (IMHO) is typically faster.
Whether or not you switch, use the GetRows method. Both DAO and ADO support it.
There is no looping. You can dump the entire recordset into an array with a couple of lines of code. Air code:
yourrecordset.MoveLast
yourrecordset.MoveFirst
yourarray = yourrecordset.GetRows(yourrecordset.RecordCount)
I'm pretty newbie to Delphi, so be kind please.
I'm working on a software that allows users to customize its interface ( button's location, appearance, wtv) and some other stuff.
The problem is, i have a grid and i store a representation of its cells on a dynamic array of Boolean which represents which cells are occupied. But when i try to free that matrix Sometimes i get an invalid pointer operation. Sometimes there isnt any error, but other times i get that invalid pointer stuff.
Definition:
type
TMatrix = array of array of Boolean;
var
Matrix: TMatrix;
Initialization:
SetLength(Matrix, MyGrid.ColumnCollection.Count, MyGrid.RowCollection.Count);
Usage:
Mostly, these kind of operations are the only ones that i use with the matrix, and i'm sure that those variables col,row,colspan,rowspan never have values greater than the array boundary
//Checks if a set of cells are occupied
for i := column to (column + columnspan)-1 do
begin
for j := row to (row + rowspan)-1 do
begin
if Matrix[i, j] then
begin
valido := False;
end;
end;
end;
// if there isnt any cell occupied i can move a component to that location and i set the cells to true ( occupied)
if (valido) then
begin
for i := column to (column + colspan)-1 do
begin
for j := row to (row + rowspan)-1 do
begin
Matrix[i,j]:= True;
end;
end;
end
Free:
try
begin
SetLength(Matrix,0,0);
end;
except
on E : Exception do
begin
//todo
ShowMessage('Free: ' + E.Message);
end;
end;
I'm using FASTMM4 and i do get the memory leak warning, but i cant understand its contents..
What can possibly be causing this error?
Im using Delphi Xe6 Firemonkey
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
The most likely explanation for this is that you are writing outside the bounds of the array. There's not enough code for us to be sure that is the case, but the symptoms you report are invariably caused by out-of-bounds access.
Your next step is to get the compiler to write code that checks for our-of-bounds access. In your project options, in the compiler section, find the range checking option. Enable this option. Now the compiler will emit code that checks that your array indices are valid whenever you access the array. If your code fails the test, at runtime, an exception will be raised. This will make it blatantly obvious which part of your code is defective.
Today I have met very strange bug.
I have the next code:
var i: integer;
...
for i := 0 to FileNames.Count - 1 do
begin
ShowMessage(IntToStr(i) + ' from ' + IntToStr(FileNames.Count - 1));
FileName := FileNames[i];
...
end;
ShowMessage('all');
FileNames list has one element. So, I consider then loop will be executed once and I see
0 from 0
all
It is a thing I did thousands times :).
But in this case I see the second loop iteration when code optimization is switched on.
0 from 0
1 from 0
all
Without code optimization loop iterates right.
For the moment I don't know even the direction to move with this issue (and upper loop bound stays unchanged, yes).
So any suggestion will be very helpful. Thanks.
I use Delphi 2005 (Upd2) compiler.
Considering the QC report referred to by LU RD, and my own experience with D2005, here is a few workarounds. I recall using the while loop solution myself.
1.Rewrite the for loop as a while loop
var
i: integer;
begin
i := 0;
while i < FileNames.Count do
begin
...
inc(i);
end;
end;
2.Leave the for loop control variable alone from any other processing and use a separate variable, that you increment in the loop, for string manipulation and FileNames indexing.
var
ctrl, indx: integer;
begin
indx := 0;
for ctrl := 0 to FileNames.Count-1 do
begin
// use indx for string manipulation and FileNames indx
inc(indx);
end;
end;
3.You hinted at a workaround in saying Without code optimization loop iterates right.
Assuming you have optimization on turn it off ( {$O-} ) before the procedure/function and on ( {$O+} ) again after. Note! The Optimization directive can only be used around at least whole procedures/functions.
Ok, it seems to me I solved the problem and can explain it.
Unfortunately, I cannot make test to reproduce the bug, and I cannot show the real code, which under NDA. So I must use simplified example again.
Problem is in dll, which used in my code. Consider the next data structure:
type
TData = packed record
Count: integer;
end;
TPData = ^TData;
and function, which defined in dll:
Calc: function(Data: TPData): integer; stdcall;
In my code I try to proceed data records which are taken from list (TList):
var
i: integer;
Data: TData;
begin
for i := 0 to List.Count - 1 do
begin
Data := TPData(List[i])^;
Calc(#Data);
end;
and in case when optimization is on I see second iteration in loop from 0 to 0.
If rewrite code as
var
i: integer;
Data, Data2: TData;
begin
for i := 0 to List.Count - 1 do
begin
Data := TPData(List[i])^;
Data2 := TPData(List[i])^;
Calc(#Data2);
end;
all works as expected.
Dll itself was developed by another programmer, so I asked him to take care about it.
What was unexpected for me - that local procedure's stack can be corruped in so unusual way without access violations or other similar errors. BTW, Data and Data2 variables contains correct values.
Maybe, my experience will be useful to someone. Thanks all who helps me and please sorry my unconscious mistakes.
I read that using the Goto command is very bad and can mess up your code. I also read that there was a poll saying that 40% of Delphi developers will be very cross if they see the goto command and delphi together and the other 40% don't even know of the goto command, why is that?
But anyways, I was making a program that checks if you qualify for a bursary by getting the two marks and getting the avarage of those two marks. In order to get the Bursary, you need to have a 90% average or above and it will display your average in a label and if you qualify in another label. I recently also learned about the If command and now I am just busy playing around with it.
Here's my code:
procedure TForm1.btnCalcClick(Sender: TObject);
var
iMaths, iScience, iAvarage : integer;
begin
iScience := sedScience.value;
iMaths := sedMath.value;
iAvarage := round((iMaths+iScience)/2);
if iMaths = 0
then
begin
showmessage ('Sorry, please put a propper value in the Maths and Science box!');
end;
if iAvarage >= 90
then
begin
lblAvarage.caption := 'Your avarage is: ' + IntToStr (iAvarage);
lblOutput.caption := 'You qualify for an Einstein Bursary!';
end
else
begin
lblAvarage.Caption := 'Your avarage is ' + IntToStr (iAvarage);
lblOutput.caption := 'Sorry, you do not qualify for an Einstein bursary.';
end;
end;
procedure TForm1.BitBtn1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
sedMath.value := 0;
sedScience.value := 0;
lblAvarage.caption := ' ';
lblOutput.caption := ' ';
sedMath.setfocus
end;
end.
Where I say if iMaths = 0 thats just making sure that there is a value in the SpinEdit, if there isn't, it must restart at the ButtonClick handler with a message saying Please insert a proper value. That all works fine, but it still displays the average in the labels (lblOutput and lblAvarage) which I don't want it to do!
If I use the goto command, this is how I think it should look:
procedure TForm1.btnCalcClick(Sender: TObject);
var
iMaths, iScience, iAvarage : integer;
label
lRestart;
begin
lRestart;
iScience := sedScience.value;
iMaths := sedMath.value;
iAvarage := round((iMaths+iScience)/2);
if iMaths and iScience = 0
then
begin
showmessage ('Sorry, please put a propper value in the Maths and Science box!');
goto lRestart;
end;
(BTW, I know the above code it wrong, I tried!)
I googled goto but I find things that are different to what I need.
Any help or advice on how to use the goto command would be greatly appreciated!
Your syntax is not correct for goto. It should be:
procedure TForm1.btnCalcClick(Sender: TObject);
....
label
lRestart;
begin
lRestart:
....
goto lRestart;
....
end;
But if you ever wanted to do something like this you'd surely avoid the goto by writing it thus:
repeat
// do something
until OkToContinue;
That said, your code should be:
procedure TForm1.btnCalcClick(Sender: TObject);
var
iMaths, iScience, iAverage: integer;
begin
iScience := sedScience.value;
iMaths := sedMath.value;
iAverage := round((iMaths+iScience)/2);
if (iMaths=0) or (iScience=0) then
begin
ShowMessage('Sorry, please put a propper value in the Maths and Science box!');
exit;
end;
// do the calculation
end;
There's no need for looping or goto in your event handler. You have to exit when you find an error and give the user opportunity to fix the mistake and click the button again. So it's just a complete mis-think on your part that you would need a goto.
I guess you have not yet fully grasped the concept of event driven programming. Were you to go back to the beginning instead of exiting the procedure, the user would have no opportunity to modify the values of the spin edit controls and you would show the message again and again and again. Try it and see what I mean.
Note also that I fixed a number of other errors in your code.
As for goto, I'm sure that you won't need it ever. I've only ever found goto to be useful in languages that don't support structured exceptions. Delphi does not fall into that camp.
You should not need to use goto in your programs.
Some reasons not to use it, since in most cases:
It will make your code less readable;
It can be easily converted into nested repeat .. until or while .. structures, which are usually with the same exact timing (will be compiled as assembler jmp .. opcode.
Sometimes, it may be slightly faster to put the conditional expression of the repeat .. until or while .. structures within the loop, and use break and continue and repeat .. until false or while true do ..:
function GotoEndOfJSONString(P: PUTF8Char): PUTF8Char;
begin // P^='"' at function call
inc(P);
repeat
if P^=#0 then
break else
if P^<>'\' then
if P^<>'"' then
inc(P) else
break else
inc(P,2);
until false;
result := P;
end; // P^='"' at function return
Which will be compiled with very optimized assembler:
inc eax
#s: mov dl,[eax]
test dl,dl
jz #e
cmp dl,$5c
je #2
cmp dl,$22
je #e
inc eax
jmp #s
#2: add eax,2
jmp #s
#e: ret
But this is perhaps worth it only for very low-level code, and will make it less readable. Writing such code is very close to writing directly the assembler code: you know that the break and continue will be converted into direct jmp .. assembler opcodes.
The only case when I use goto is in some well-defined conditions:
Identified low-level process of data (e.g. text handling);
Only for performance reasons;
With proper unit testing (since code is less readable);
When branching is needed in-between case .. of inner blocks, or from one loop to another;
When I want to avoid calling a sub-procedure in older versions of Delphi (e.g. Delphi 7) - but in modern Delphi, goto can be replaced by an inline local procedure.
Some example:
procedure TTextWriter.AddJSONEscape(P: Pointer; Len: PtrInt);
var c: PtrUInt;
label Esc, nxt;
begin
if P=nil then exit;
if Len=0 then
Len := MaxInt;
if B>=BEnd then
Flush;
repeat
inc(B);
// escape chars, according to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
c := PByte(P)^;
if c>=32 then begin
if c in [ord('\'),{ord('/'),}ord('"')] then goto Esc;
B^ := AnsiChar(c);
nxt: if Len=1 then
break;
dec(Len);
inc(PByte(P));
if B<BEnd then
continue;
Flush;
end else
case c of
0: begin
dec(B); break; end;
8: begin
c := ord('b'); goto Esc; end;
9: begin
c := ord('t'); goto Esc; end;
$a: begin
c := ord('n'); goto Esc; end;
$c: begin
c := ord('f'); goto Esc; end;
$d: begin
c := ord('r');
Esc: B^ := '\';
if B>=BEnd then // inlined: avoid endless loop
Flush;
B[1] := AnsiChar(c);
inc(B);
goto nxt;
end;
else begin // characters below ' ', #7 e.g. -> // 'u0007'
B^ := '\';
AddShort('u00');
Add(HexChars[c shr 4],HexChars[c and $F]);
goto nxt;
end;
end;
until false;
end;
As a conclusion, outside the FastCode challenge in pure pascal or some low-level code, you should not see any goto any more.
In my program, I process millions of strings that have a special character, e.g. "|" to separate tokens within each string. I have a function to return the n'th token, and this is it:
function GetTok(const Line: string; const Delim: string; const TokenNum: Byte): string;
{ LK Feb 12, 2007 - This function has been optimized as best as possible }
var
I, P, P2: integer;
begin
P2 := Pos(Delim, Line);
if TokenNum = 1 then begin
if P2 = 0 then
Result := Line
else
Result := copy(Line, 1, P2-1);
end
else begin
P := 0; { To prevent warnings }
for I := 2 to TokenNum do begin
P := P2;
if P = 0 then break;
P2 := PosEx(Delim, Line, P+1);
end;
if P = 0 then
Result := ''
else if P2 = 0 then
Result := copy(Line, P+1, MaxInt)
else
Result := copy(Line, P+1, P2-P-1);
end;
end; { GetTok }
I developed this function back when I was using Delphi 4. It calls the very efficient PosEx routine that was originally developed by Fastcode and is now included in the StrUtils library of Delphi.
I recently upgraded to Delphi 2009 and my strings are all Unicode. This GetTok function still works and still works well.
I have gone through the new libraries in Delphi 2009 and there are many new functions and additions to it.
But I have not seen a GetToken function like I need in any of the new Delphi libraries, in the various fastcode projects, and I can't find anything with a Google search other than Zarko Gajic's: Delphi Split / Tokenizer Functions, which is not as optimized as what I already have.
Any improvement, even 10% would be noticeable in my program. I know an alternative is StringLists and to always keep the tokens separate, but this has a big overhead memory-wise and I'm not sure if I did all that work to convert whether it would be any faster.
Whew. So after all this long winded talk, my question really is:
Do you know of any very fast implementations of a GetToken routine? An assembler optimized version would be ideal?
If not, are there any optimizations that you can see to my code above that might make an improvement?
Followup: Barry Kelly mentioned a question I asked a year ago about optimizing the parsing of the lines in a file. At that time I hadn't even thought of my GetTok routine which was not used for the that read or parsing. It is only now that I saw the overhead of my GetTok routine which led me to ask this question. Until Carl Smotricz and Barry's answers, I had never thought of connecting the two. So obvious, but it just didn't register. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, my Delim is a single character, so obviously I have some major optimization I can do. My use of Pos and PosEx in the GetTok routine (above) blinded me to the idea that I can do it faster with a character by character search instead, with bits of code like:
while (cp^ > #0) and (cp^ <= Delim) do
Inc(cp);
I'm going to go through everyone's answers and try the various suggestions and compare them. Then I'll post the results.
Confusion: Okay, now I'm really perplexed.
I took Carl and Barry's recommendation to go with PChars, and here is my implementation:
function GetTok(const Line: string; const Delim: string; const TokenNum: Byte): string;
{ LK Feb 12, 2007 - This function has been optimized as best as possible }
{ LK Nov 7, 2009 - Reoptimized using PChars instead of calls to Pos and PosEx }
{ See; https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1694001/is-there-a-fast-gettoken-routine-for-delphi }
var
I: integer;
PLine, PStart: PChar;
begin
PLine := PChar(Line);
PStart := PLine;
inc(PLine);
for I := 1 to TokenNum do begin
while (PLine^ <> #0) and (PLine^ <> Delim) do
inc(PLine);
if I = TokenNum then begin
SetString(Result, PStart, PLine - PStart);
break;
end;
if PLine^ = #0 then begin
Result := '';
break;
end;
inc(PLine);
PStart := PLine;
end;
end; { GetTok }
On paper, I don't think you can do much better than this.
So I put both routines to the task and used AQTime to see what's happening. The run I had included 1,108,514 calls to GetTok.
AQTime timed the original routine at 0.40 seconds. The million calls to Pos took 0.10 seconds. A half a million of the TokenNum = 1 copies took 0.10 seconds. The 600,000 PosEx calls only took 0.03 seconds.
Then I timed my new routine with AQTime for the same run and exactly the same calls. AQTime reports that my new "fast" routine took 3.65 seconds, which is 9 times as long. The culprit according to AQTime was the first loop:
while (PLine^ <> #0) and (PLine^ <> Delim) do
inc(PLine);
The while line, which was executed 18 million times, was reported at 2.66 seconds. The inc line, executed 16 million times, was said to take 0.47 seconds.
Now I thought I knew what was happening here. I had a similar problem with AQTime in a question I posed last year: Why is CharInSet faster than Case statement?
Again it was Barry Kelly who clued me in. Basically, an instrumenting profiler like AQTime does not necessarily do the job for microoptimization. It adds an overhead to each line which may swamp the results which is shown clearly in these numbers. The 34 million lines executed in my new "optimized code" overwhelm the several million lines of my original code, with apparently little or no overhead from the Pos and PosEx routines.
Barry gave me a sample of code using QueryPerformanceCounter to check that he was correct, and in that case he was.
Okay, so let's do the same now with QueryPerformanceCounter to prove that my new routine is faster and not 9 times slower as AQTime says it is. So here I go:
function TimeIt(const Title: string): double;
var i: Integer;
start, finish, freq: Int64;
Seconds: double;
begin
QueryPerformanceCounter(start);
for i := 1 to 250000 do
GetTokOld('This is a string|that needs|parsing', '|', 1);
for i := 1 to 250000 do
GetTokOld('This is a string|that needs|parsing', '|', 2);
for i := 1 to 250000 do
GetTokOld('This is a string|that needs|parsing', '|', 3);
for i := 1 to 250000 do
GetTokOld('This is a string|that needs|parsing', '|', 4);
QueryPerformanceCounter(finish);
QueryPerformanceFrequency(freq);
Seconds := (finish - start) / freq;
Result := Seconds;
end;
So this will test 1,000,000 calls to GetTok.
My old procedure with the Pos and PosEx calls took 0.29 seconds.
The new one with PChars took 2.07 seconds.
Now I am completely befuddled! Can anyone tell me why the PChar procedure is not only slower, but is 8 to 9 times slower!?
Mystery solved! Andreas said in his answer to change the Delim parameter from a string to a Char. I'll always be using just a Char, so at least for my implementation this is very possible. I was amazed at what happened.
The time for the 1 million calls went down from 1.88 seconds to .22 seconds.
And surprisingly, the time for my original Pos/PosEx routine went UP from .29 to .44 seconds when I changed it's Delim parameter to a Char.
Frankly, I'm disappointed by Delphi's optimizer. That Delim is a constant parameter. The optimizer should have noticed that the same conversion is happening within the loop and should have moved it out so that it would only be done once.
Double checking my Code generation parameters, yes I do have Optimization True and String format checking Off.
Bottom line is that the new PChar routine with Andrea's fix is about 25% faster than my original (.22 versus .29).
I still want to follow up on the other comments here and test them out.
Turning off optimization and turning on String format checking only increases the time from .22 to .30. It adds about the same to the original.
The advantage to using assembler code, or calling routines written in assembler like Pos or PosEx is that they are NOT subject to what code generation options you have set. They will always run the same way, a pre-optimized and non-bloated way.
I have reaffirmed in the last couple of days, that the best way to compare code for microoptimization is to look at and compare the Assembler code in the CPU window. It would be nice if Embarcadero could make that window a bit more convenient, and allow us to copy portions to the clipboard or to print sections of it.
Also, I unfairly slammed AQTime earlier in this post, thinking that the extra time added for my new routine was solely because of the instrumentation it added. Now that I go back and check with the Char parameter instead of String, the while loop is down to .30 seconds (from 2.66) and the inc line is down to .14 seconds (from .47). Strange that the inc line would go down as well. But I'm getting worn out from all this testing already.
I took Carl's idea of looping by characters, and rewrote that code with that idea. It makes another improvement, down to .19 seconds from .22. So here is now the best so far:
function GetTok(const Line: string; const Delim: Char; const TokenNum: Byte): string;
{ LK Nov 8, 2009 - Reoptimized using PChars instead of calls to Pos and PosEx }
{ See; https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1694001/is-there-a-fast-gettoken-routine-for-delphi }
var
I, CurToken: Integer;
PLine, PStart: PChar;
begin
CurToken := 1;
PLine := PChar(Line);
PStart := PLine;
for I := 1 to length(Line) do begin
if PLine^ = Delim then begin
if CurToken = TokenNum then
break
else begin
CurToken := CurToken + 1;
inc(PLine);
PStart := PLine;
end;
end
else
inc(PLine);
end;
if CurToken = TokenNum then
SetString(Result, PStart, PLine - PStart)
else
Result := '';
end;
There still may be some minor optimizations to this, such as the CurToken = Tokennum comparison, which should be the same type, Integer or Byte, whichever is faster.
But let's say, I'm happy now.
Thanks again to the StackOverflow Delphi community.
It makes a big difference what "Delim" is expected to be. If it's expected to be a single character, you're far better off stepping through the string character by character, ideally through a PChar, and testing specifically.
If it's a long string, Boyer-Moore and similar searches have a set-up phase for skip tables, and the best way would be to build the tables once, and reuse them for each subsequent find. That means you need state between calls, and this function would be better off as a method on an object instead.
You might be interested in this answer I gave to a question some time before, about the fastest way to parse a line in Delphi. (But I see that it is you that asked the question! Nevertheless, in solving your problem, I would hew to how I described parsing, not using PosEx like you are using, depending on what Delim normally looks like.)
UPDATE: OK, I spent about 40 minutes looking at this. If you know the delimiter is going to be a character, you're pretty much always better off with the second version (i.e. PChar scanning), but you have to pass Delim as a character. At the time of writing, you're converting the PLine^ expression - of type Char - to a string for comparison with Delim. That will be very slow; even indexing into the string, with Delim[1] will also be somewhat slow.
However, depending on how large your lines are, and how many delimited pieces you want to pull out, you may be better off with a resumable approach, rather than skipping unwanted delimited pieces inside the tokenizing routine. If you call GetTok with successively increasing indexes, like you are currently doing in your mini benchmark, you'll end up with O(n*n) performance, where n is the number of delimited sections. That can be turned into O(n) if you save the state of the scan and restore it for the next iteration, or pack all extracted items into an array.
Here's a version that does all tokenization once, and returns an array. It needs to tokenize twice though, in order to know how large to make the array. On the other hand, only the second tokenization needs to extract the strings:
// Do all tokenization up front.
function GetTok4(const Line: string; const Delim: Char): TArray<string>;
var
cp, start: PChar;
count: Integer;
begin
// Count sections
count := 1;
cp := PChar(Line);
start := cp;
while True do
begin
if cp^ <> #0 then
begin
if cp^ <> Delim then
Inc(cp)
else
begin
Inc(cp);
Inc(count);
end;
end
else
begin
Inc(count);
Break;
end;
end;
SetLength(Result, count);
cp := start;
count := 0;
while True do
begin
if cp^ <> #0 then
begin
if cp^ <> Delim then
Inc(cp)
else
begin
SetString(Result[count], start, cp - start);
Inc(cp);
Inc(count);
end;
end
else
begin
SetString(Result[count], start, cp - start);
Break;
end;
end;
end;
Here's the resumable approach. The loads and stores of the current position and delimiter character do have a cost, though:
type
TTokenizer = record
private
FSource: string;
FCurrPos: PChar;
FDelim: Char;
public
procedure Reset(const ASource: string; ADelim: Char); inline;
function GetToken(out AResult: string): Boolean; inline;
end;
procedure TTokenizer.Reset(const ASource: string; ADelim: Char);
begin
FSource := ASource; // keep reference alive
FCurrPos := PChar(FSource);
FDelim := ADelim;
end;
function TTokenizer.GetToken(out AResult: string): Boolean;
var
cp, start: PChar;
delim: Char;
begin
// copy members to locals for better optimization
cp := FCurrPos;
delim := FDelim;
if cp^ = #0 then
begin
AResult := '';
Exit(False);
end;
start := cp;
while (cp^ <> #0) and (cp^ <> Delim) do
Inc(cp);
SetString(AResult, start, cp - start);
if cp^ = Delim then
Inc(cp);
FCurrPos := cp;
Result := True;
end;
Here's the full program I used for benchmarking.
Here are the results:
*** count=3, Length(src)=200
GetTok1: 595 ms
GetTok2: 547 ms
GetTok3: 2366 ms
GetTok4: 407 ms
GetTokBK: 226 ms
*** count=6, Length(src)=350
GetTok1: 1587 ms
GetTok2: 1502 ms
GetTok3: 6890 ms
GetTok4: 679 ms
GetTokBK: 334 ms
*** count=9, Length(src)=500
GetTok1: 3055 ms
GetTok2: 2912 ms
GetTok3: 13766 ms
GetTok4: 947 ms
GetTokBK: 446 ms
*** count=12, Length(src)=650
GetTok1: 4997 ms
GetTok2: 4803 ms
GetTok3: 23021 ms
GetTok4: 1213 ms
GetTokBK: 543 ms
*** count=15, Length(src)=800
GetTok1: 7417 ms
GetTok2: 7173 ms
GetTok3: 34644 ms
GetTok4: 1480 ms
GetTokBK: 653 ms
Depending on the characteristics of your data, whether the delimiter is likely to be a character or not, and how you work with it, different approaches may be faster.
(I made a mistake in my earlier program, I wasn't measuring the same operations for each style of routine. I updated the pastebin link and benchmark results.)
Your new function (the one with PChar) should declare "Delim" as Char and not as String. In your current implementation the compiler has to convert the PLine^ char into a string to compare it with "Delim". And that happens in a tight loop resulting is an enormous performance hit.
function GetTok(const Line: string; const Delim: Char{<<==}; const TokenNum: Byte): string;
{ LK Feb 12, 2007 - This function has been optimized as best as possible }
{ LK Nov 7, 2009 - Reoptimized using PChars instead of calls to Pos and PosEx }
{ See; http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1694001/is-there-a-fast-gettoken-routine-for-delphi }
var
I: integer;
PLine, PStart: PChar;
begin
PLine := PChar(Line);
PStart := PLine;
inc(PLine);
for I := 1 to TokenNum do begin
while (PLine^ <> #0) and (PLine^ <> Delim) do
inc(PLine);
if I = TokenNum then begin
SetString(Result, PStart, PLine - PStart);
break;
end;
if PLine^ = #0 then begin
Result := '';
break;
end;
inc(PLine);
PStart := PLine;
end;
end; { GetTok }
Delphi compiles to VERY efficient code; in my experience, it was very difficult to do better in assembler.
I think you should just point a PChar (they still exist, don't they? I parted ways with Delphi around 4.0) at the beginning of the string and increment it while counting "|"s, until you've found n-1 of them. I suspect that will be faster than calling PosEx repeatedly.
Take note of that position, then increment the pointer some more until you hit the next pipe. Pull out your substring. Done.
I'm only guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was close to the quickest this problem can be solved.
EDIT: Here's what I had in mind. This code is, alas, uncompiled and untested, but it should demonstrate what I meant.
In particular, Delim is treated as a single char, which I believe makes a world of difference if that will fulfill the requirements, and the character at PLine is tested only once. Finally, there's no more comparison against TokenNum; I believe it's faster to decrement a counter to 0 for counting delimiters.
function GetTok(const Line: string; const Delim: string; const TokenNum: Byte): string;
var
Del: Char;
PLine, PStart: PChar;
Nth, I, P0, P9: Integer;
begin
Del := Delim[1];
Nth := TokenNum + 1;
P0 := 1;
P9 := Line.length + 1;
PLine := PChar(line);
for I := 1 to P9 do begin
if PLine^ = Del then begin
if Nth = 0 then begin
P9 := I;
break;
end;
Dec(Nth);
if Nth = 0 then P0 := I + 1
end;
Inc(PLine);
end;
if (Nth <= 1) or (TokenNum = 1) then
Result := Copy(Line, P0, P9 - P0);
else
Result := ''
end;
Using assembler would be a micro-optimization. There are much greater gains to be had by optimizing the algorithm. Not doing work beats doing work in the fastest possible way, every time.
One example would be if you have places in your program where you need several tokens of the same line. Another procedure that returns an array of tokens which you can then index into should be faster than calling your function more than once, especially if you let the procedure not return all tokens, but only as many as you need.
But in general I agree with Carl's answer (+1), using a PChar for scanning would probably be faster than your current code.
This is a function that I've had in my personal library for quite some time that I use extensively. I believe this is the most current version of it. I've had multiple versions in the past being optimized for a variety of different reasons. This one tries to take into account Quoted strings, but if that code is removed it makes the function a slight bit faster.
I actually have a number of other routines, CountSections and ParseSectionPOS being a couple of examples.
Unfortuately this routine is ansi/pchar based only. Although I don't think it would be difficult to move it to unicode. Maybe I've already done that...I'll have to check on that.
Note: This routine is 1 based in the ParseNum indexing.
function ParseSection(ParseLine: string; ParseNum: Integer; ParseSep: Char; QuotedStrChar:char = #0) : string;
var
wStart, wEnd : integer;
wIndex : integer;
wLen : integer;
wQuotedString : boolean;
begin
result := '';
wQuotedString := false;
if not (ParseLine = '') then
begin
wIndex := 1;
wStart := 1;
wEnd := 1;
wLen := Length(ParseLine);
while wEnd <= wLen do
begin
if (QuotedStrChar <> #0) and (ParseLine[wEnd] = QuotedStrChar) then
wQuotedString := not wQuotedString;
if not wQuotedString and (ParseLine[wEnd] = ParseSep) then
begin
if wIndex=ParseNum then
break
else
begin
inc(wIndex);
wStart := wEnd+1;
end;
end;
inc(wEnd);
end;
result := copy(ParseLine, wStart, wEnd-wStart);
if (length(result) > 0) and (QuotedStrChar <> #0) and (result[1] = QuotedStrChar) then
result := AnsiDequotedStr(result, QuotedStrChar);
end;
end; { ParseSection }
In your code, I think this is the only line that can be optimized:
Result := copy(Line, P+1, MaxInt)
If you calculate the new Length there, it might get a bit faster, but not the 10% you are looking for.
Your tokenizing algorithm seems pretty OK.
For optimizing it, I would run it through a profiler (like AQTime from AutomatedQA) with a representative subset of your production data. That will point you to the weakest spot.
The only RTL function that comes close is this one in the Classes unit:
procedure TStrings.SetDelimitedText(const Value: string);
It tokenizes, but uses both QuoteChar and Delimiter, but you only use a Delimiter.
It uses the SetString function in the System unit which is a pretty fast way to set the content of a string based on a PChar/PAnsiChar/PUnicodeChar and a length.
That might get you some improvement as well; on the other hand, Copy is really fast too.
I'm not the person always blaming the algorithm, but if I look at the first piece of source,
the problem is that for string N, you do the POS/posexes for string 1..n-1 again too.
This means for N items, you do sum (n, n-1,n-2...1) POSes (=+/- 0.5*N^2) , while only N are needed.
If you simply cache the position of the last found result, e.g. in a record that is passed by VAR parameter, you can gain a lot.
type
TLastPosition = record
elementnr : integer; // last tokennumber
elementpos: integer; // character index of last match
end;
and then something
if tokennum=(lastposition.elementnr+1) then
begin
newpos:=posex(delim,line,lastposition.elementpos);
end;
Unfortunately, I don't have the time now to write it out, but I hope you get the idea