Algorithm Challenge

[Kevin Cramer Member Find all posts View Profile Close Kevin Cramer]

Hi All,

I have a need to compare two strings in a sliding fashion. For example, lets suppose you have two strings:

A B C D E
F G H I J

You want to compare these two in a way that the first comparison might be:

E
F

Next you slide and compare:

D E
F G

Next you slide and compare:

C D E
F G H

And onward until the last comparison would then be:

A
J

In each case you are comapring overlapping characters to eachother to see if they match, but that is secondary to the algorithm. I have written this and it works, but I am wondering if it could be done faster, because in my application speed matters. Of course, ASM would be great, but I am wondering if anyone can do it faster than my code. Below is the code (note that z and y are indexes into the string which is stored in an array...also rawinputlength is length of the string, a.k.a the number of elements in the array).

'this first section slides the strings until the are almost directly over eachother
        matches2 = 0: matches = 0
        overlap1 = %rawInpLength: overlap2 = 1
        z = %rawInpLength
        y = 1
        DO
             DO WHILE z >= overlap1
                  DO WHILE y >= 1
                      '''''Do comparison here
                      z = z - 1
                      y = y - 1
                  WEND
             WEND
             DECR overlap1
             INCR overlap2
             z = %rawInpLength
             y = overlap2

        LOOP WHILE overlap2 <= %rawInpLength-1

'this section then continues the sliding forward from where the last code finished
        FOR z = 0 TO %rawInpLength-1

             FOR y = 1 TO %rawInpLength - z
                    '''''Do comparison here
             NEXT y
        NEXT z

[Mel Bishop Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mel Bishop]

You might want to do some research on the 'Ceasar Cipher'. Looks like that is what you are looking for.

[Gary Beene Member Find all posts View Profile Close Gary Beene]

Kevin,

How about giving a compilable of your approach so we can test if our solution is faster?

[Gary Beene Member Find all posts View Profile Close Gary Beene]

I'm still not 100% sure of what you're looking for, but here's an approach that tests the strings "abcdx" and "cdxab". It took 2.3 seconds for 1,000,000 tests. In a second test, with a string of length 29 characters, it took right at 3 seconds for the 1,000,000 tests.

The output gives the strings tested, which slider position were a match and how long it took.

Without your code to compare it to, I don't know if that's fast or slow - or even if the output is what you were looking for.

I've only done a limited numbers of test strings, so let me know if you find anything wrong with it.

'Compilable Example:
#Compile Exe
#Dim All
#Include "Win32API.inc"
Global hDlg as DWord
Function PBMain() As Long
   Dialog New Pixels, 0, "Test Code",300,300,200,200, %WS_OverlappedWindow To hDlg
   Control Add Button, hDlg, 100,"Push", 50,10,100,20
   Dialog Show Modal hDlg Call DlgProc
End Function
CallBack Function DlgProc() As Long
   If CB.Msg = %WM_Command AND CB.Ctl = 100 AND CB.Ctlmsg = %BN_Clicked Then
      Dim iStart As Long, iEnd As Long, Result As String, A as String, B as String
      A = "abcdx"  :  B = "cdxab"
      iStart = GetTickCount
      Result = SlidingComparison( 1000000, A, B)
      iEnd = GetTickCount
      MsgBox "Strings:" + $crlf + A + $crlf + B + $crlf + $crlf + Format$((iEnd - iStart)/1000,3) & " seconds" + $crlf + $crlf + "Matches:" + $crlf  + Result
   End If
End Function

Function SlidingComparison(iLoops&, A as String, B as String) As String
    'strings must be equal length
    Local pEndA As Byte Pointer, pStartB As Byte Pointer, sLength As Long, iNotMatchFlag As Long, Matches$, X As Long
    Local iMisMatch As Long, pATemp As Byte Pointer, pBTemp As Byte Pointer, i As Long, j As Long, pStartA As Byte Pointer
    sLength  = Len(A)
    pEndA    = StrPTR(A) + sLength - 1
    pStartA  = StrPTR(A)
    pStartB  = StrPTR(B)

    For x = 1 To iLoops&
        Matches$ = ""

        For i = 1 To sLength                           ' i is the amount of overlap
            iNotMatchFlag = 0
            For j = 1 To i
                pATemp = pEndA - i + j
                pBTemp = pStartB + j - 1
                If @pATemp <> @pBTemp Then
                    iNotMatchFlag = 1
                    Exit For
                End If
            Next j
            If iNotMatchFlag = 0 Then  Matches$ = Matches$ + " " + Str$(i)
        Next i

        For i = 2 To sLength                            ' i is the amount of overlap
            iNotMatchFlag = 0
            For j = i To sLength
                pATemp = pStartA - i + j
                pBTemp = pStartB + j - 1
                If @pATemp <> @pBTemp Then
                    iNotMatchFlag = 1
                    Exit For
                End If
            Next j
            If iNotMatchFlag = 0 Then  Matches$ = Matches$ + " " + Str$(i+sLength)
        Next i

    Next X
    Function = Matches$

End Function

[Kevin Cramer Member Find all posts View Profile Close Kevin Cramer]

Kevin,

How about giving a compilable of your approach so we can test if our solution is faster?

Here is some simple code to precede the prior code that should serve as a decent test bed. You can make the strings whatever length you want...

#COMPILE EXE
#DIM ALL

rawInpLength = 300

FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG

    REGISTER x AS LONG, y AS LONG, z AS LONG
    DIM overlap1 AS LONG, overlap2 AS LONG
    
    DIM temp1(300) AS STRING
    DIM temp2(300) AS STRING
    
    FOR x = 1 TO 300
         temp1(x) = CHR$(RND(65,90))
         temp2(x) = CHR$(RND(65,90))
    NEXT x
    
    ''''insert rest of code here...
         

END FUNCTION

[John Gleason Member Find all posts View Profile Close John Gleason]

This is a quite fast way without asm:

Added: REGISTER'ed two vars (changed lines in red) for a nice speed increase

#COMPILE EXE
#DIM ALL

FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG
[COLOR="Red"]   LOCAL str1, str2 AS STRING, ii, rawLen AS LONG, t AS QUAD
   REGISTER overlap AS LONG, compare AS LONG
[/COLOR]   rawLen = 100
   str1 = SPACE$(rawLen)
   str2 = STRING$(rawLen, 32)
   DIM s1Arr(1 TO rawLen) AS BYTE AT STRPTR(str1)
   DIM s2Arr(1 TO rawLen) AS BYTE AT STRPTR(str2)
   DIM matches(1 TO rawLen) AS LONG
   DIM matches2(1 TO rawLen - 1) AS LONG
   
   FOR overlap = 1 TO rawLen
      FOR compare = 1 TO overlap
         IF s1Arr(rawLen - compare + 1) = s2Arr(compare) THEN INCR matches(overlap)
      NEXT
   NEXT
   
   'and reverse strings, but don't count "center position" twice, so only go to 99
   
   FOR overlap = rawLen - 1 TO 1 STEP -1
      FOR compare = 1 TO overlap
         IF s2Arr(rawLen - compare + 1) = s1Arr(compare) THEN INCR matches2(overlap)
      NEXT
   NEXT
   ? "Compare is done"
'   WAITKEY$

   'show results.
   'Note: The below method to display above results is just for demo purposes and not final production code.
   'If the strings being compared are large, "str1 &= STR$(matches(ii))" is a VERY SLOW way to display
   'the results and should not be used. Iterative string concatenation is very slow and should be avoided.
   RESET str1
   FOR ii = 1 TO rawLen
      str1 &= STR$(matches(ii))
   NEXT
   FOR ii = rawLen - 1 TO 1 STEP -1
      str1 &= STR$(matches2(ii))
   NEXT
   ? str1
'   WAITKEY$

END FUNCTION

[John Gleason Member Find all posts View Profile Close John Gleason]

I ran a timing on the post #6 code and got 5 billion Tix for two (identical) strings of 16,000 bytes each. For non-matching strings the time was 3.7 billion Tix. So, 3.7 to 5 billion Tix depending on the two strings' matching level would be the algo speed.

[Kevin Cramer Member Find all posts View Profile Close Kevin Cramer]

Speed test

Hi Gary,

i had to modify your code to work with an array instead of pointers into a single string (see test code below). We get the same count at the end, which means your code works. Mine was a bit faster over a 30,000 element array...here were the results:

test kevin start: 68241.125
Kevin finish: 68306.359 34606953
test Gary start: 68306.359
test Gary end: 68376.312 34606953

%rawInpLength = 30000

FUNCTION PBMAIN () AS LONG

    REGISTER x AS LONG, y AS LONG, z AS LONG
    DIM overlap1 AS LONG, overlap2 AS LONG, counter AS LONG
    
    counter = 0
    
    OPEN "speedtest.log" FOR OUTPUT AS #10

    DIM temp1(%rawInpLength) AS STRING
    DIM temp2(%rawInpLength) AS STRING

    FOR x = 1 TO %rawInpLength
         temp1(x) = CHR$(RND(65,90))
         temp2(x) = CHR$(RND(65,90))
    NEXT x
    
    PRINT#10,"test kevin start:";TIMER

    overlap1 = %rawInpLength: overlap2 = 1
    z = %rawInpLength
    y = 1
    DO
         DO WHILE z >= overlap1
              DO WHILE y >= 1
                  '''''Do comparison here
                  
                  IF temp1(z) = temp2(y) THEN INCR counter
                  z = z - 1
                  y = y - 1
              WEND
         WEND
         DECR overlap1
         INCR overlap2
         z = %rawInpLength
         y = overlap2

    LOOP WHILE overlap2 <= %rawInpLength-1

      'this section then continues the sliding forward from where the last code finished
    FOR z = 0 TO %rawInpLength-1

         FOR y = 1 TO %rawInpLength - z
             IF temp1(y) = temp2(y+z) THEN INCR counter
         NEXT y
    NEXT z
    
    PRINT#10,"Kevin finish:";TIMER, counter
    
    
    LOCAL pEndA AS LONG, pStartB AS LONG, sLength AS LONG, iNotMatchFlag AS LONG, Matches$
    LOCAL iMisMatch AS LONG, pATemp AS LONG, pBTemp AS LONG, i AS LONG, j AS LONG, pStartA AS LONG
                        
    PRINT#10,"test Gary start:";TIMER
    sLength  = %rawInpLength
    pEndA    = %rawInpLength
    pStartA  = 1
    pStartB  = 1
    counter = 0

    FOR i = 1 TO sLength                           ' i is the amount of overlap
        FOR j = 1 TO i
            pATemp = pEndA - i + j
            pBTemp = pStartB + j - 1
            IF temp1(pATemp) = temp2(pBTemp) THEN
                INCR counter
            END IF
        NEXT j
    NEXT i

    FOR i = 2 TO sLength                            ' i is the amount of overlap
        FOR j = i TO sLength
            pATemp = pStartA - i + j
            pBTemp = pStartB + j - 1
            IF temp1(pATemp) = temp2(pBTemp) THEN
                INCR counter
            END IF
        NEXT j
    NEXT i

    PRINT#10,"test Gary end:";TIMER,counter

END FUNCTION

[Kevin Cramer Member Find all posts View Profile Close Kevin Cramer]

John Test

Hi John,

I tested your method, code below, but got a different match count than my code. Perhaps I made an error when converting your code to work with my scenario?

test kevin start: 71442.406
Kevin finish: 71518.875 34606953
test Gary start: 71518.875
test Gary end: 71610.546 34606953
test John Start: 71610.546
test John End: 71723.718 34560000

    counter = 0
    
    PRINT#10,"test John Start:";TIMER
    LOCAL overlap, compare, rawLen AS LONG
    
    FOR overlap = 1 TO %rawInpLength
       FOR compare = 1 TO overlap
          IF temp1(%rawInpLength - compare + 1) = temp2(compare) THEN INCR counter
       NEXT
    NEXT

   'and reverse strings, but don't count "center position" twice, so only go to 99

   FOR overlap = %rawInpLength - 1 TO 1 STEP -1
      FOR compare = 1 TO overlap
         IF temp2(%rawInpLength - compare + 1) = temp1(compare) THEN INCR counter
      NEXT
   NEXT
   
   PRINT#10,"test John End:";TIMER,counter

[John Gleason Member Find all posts View Profile Close John Gleason]

Kevin, that translation looks correct, must be a problem with my code. I'll see if I can debug it. Well, I just checked the timing and it's slower than both the other code examples, so no reason to debug that one, just eighty-six it.

I'll see if I can think of a different approach.

[Gary Beene Member Find all posts View Profile Close Gary Beene]

John,

I have never used the Register function before so when I saw your post I thought I'd give it a try on the example I already gave.

Here's the earlier example I posted, but with the loop variables declared with REGISTER.

But to my surprise, the new answer was almost the same as the old one - no gain worth mentioning.

All I did was use REGISTER on the i,j loop variables. These get changed a lot in the Function.

Would you know why a noticeable gain would not be seen? Like I said, I've not used them before but from reading the Help file I was expecting at least a noticeable speed improvement.

'Compilable Example:
#Compile Exe
#Register None
#Dim All
#Include "Win32API.inc"
Global hDlg As Dword
Function PBMain() As Long
   Dialog New Pixels, 0, "Test Code",300,300,200,200, %WS_OverlappedWindow To hDlg
   Control Add Button, hDlg, 100,"Push", 50,10,100,20
   Dialog Show Modal hDlg Call DlgProc
End Function
CallBack Function DlgProc() As Long
   If Cb.Msg = %WM_Command And Cb.Ctl = 100 And Cb.CtlMsg = %BN_Clicked Then
      Dim iStart As Long, iEnd As Long, Result As String, A As String, B As String
      A = "abcdx"  :  B = "cdxab"
      iStart = GetTickCount
      Result = SlidingComparison( 1000000, A, B)
      iEnd = GetTickCount
      MsgBox "Strings:" + $CrLf + A + $CrLf + B + $CrLf + $CrLf + Format$((iEnd - iStart)/1000,3) & " seconds" + $CrLf + $CrLf + "Matches:" + $CrLf  + Result
   End If
End Function

Function SlidingComparison(iLoops&, A As String, B As String) As String
    'strings must be equal length
    Register i As Long, j As Long
    Local pEndA As Byte Pointer, pStartB As Byte Pointer, sLength As Long, iNotMatchFlag As Long, Matches$, x As Long
    Local iMisMatch As Long, pATemp As Byte Pointer, pBTemp As Byte Pointer, pStartA As Byte Pointer
    sLength  = Len(A)
    pEndA    = StrPtr(A) + sLength - 1
    pStartA  = StrPtr(A)
    pStartB  = StrPtr(B)

    For x = 1 To iLoops&
        Matches$ = ""

        For i = 1 To sLength                           ' i is the amount of overlap
            iNotMatchFlag = 0
            For j = 1 To i
                pATemp = pEndA - i + j
                pBTemp = pStartB + j - 1
                If @pATemp <> @pBTemp Then
                    iNotMatchFlag = 1
                    Exit For
                End If
            Next j
            If iNotMatchFlag = 0 Then  Matches$ = Matches$ + " " + Str$(i)
        Next i

        For i = 2 To sLength                            ' i is the amount of overlap
            iNotMatchFlag = 0
            For j = i To sLength
                pATemp = pStartA - i + j
                pBTemp = pStartB + j - 1
                If @pATemp <> @pBTemp Then
                    iNotMatchFlag = 1
                    Exit For
                End If
            Next j
            If iNotMatchFlag = 0 Then  Matches$ = Matches$ + " " + Str$(i+sLength)
        Next i

    Next X
    Function = Matches$

End Function

... edited at 9pm. I left off the #Register None, but the results were the same - no noticeable difference between the two.

[Kevin Cramer Member Find all posts View Profile Close Kevin Cramer]

I see you wrote to John...but i will add my two cents worth. The Powerbasic folks play up the register capability for performance improvements in their software, but i have seen very little evidence that it makes any difference. Perhaps with older OS's and CPU's it made more of a difference, but with modern processor and OS it seems to make little difference.

You may notice more with floating point variables being registered, which is only allowed for EXT data types...I have not tested that as thoroughly...

Cheers,
Kevin

[Gary Beene Member Find all posts View Profile Close Gary Beene]

John/Kevin,

I got the answer in a different thread. In my example above, questioning the value of Register, I didn't specifically ensure that i,j were not automatically used as register variables.

But when I rewrote the code to guarantee that i,j are NOT register variables, there is a speed difference although not that much since the content within the loops is the dominant speed factor.

Removing all of the content, leaving just the loop, the with-REGISTER variables time was 0.09 seconds vs 0.16 without register variables. So the speed improvement when using REGISTER is there, but it's just not large in comparison to the speed of all the content within the loops.

[John Gleason Member Find all posts View Profile Close John Gleason]

Kevin/Gary,
A possible reason the register vars. didn't make a difference between 2 code versions, is that both versions may already have similar variables registered even tho you didn't specify them. The compiler did it automatically and it matched or mostly matched your explicit declaration.

Sometimes it doesn't make a big difference using them or not, but I try to always give it a shot.

I'm further thinking that Paul Dixon's code in the DNA thread may be close to the answer here. Ever done any MMX code?

[Kevin Cramer Member Find all posts View Profile Close Kevin Cramer]

I have not done MMX code. This comparison is very similar to DNA sequence comparison..something I am slightly familiar with but not what this application is for. I will try to find that thread...thanks

[John Gleason Member Find all posts View Profile Close John Gleason]

Here is the thread:

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pb...ad.php?t=41843

[John Gleason Member Find all posts View Profile Close John Gleason]

Kevin, try the code below in your algorithm. Check if it is right, but I'm getting a several times speedup just converting to byte from string.

    DIM temp1(%rawInpLength) AS BYTE
    DIM temp2(%rawInpLength) AS BYTE

    FOR x = 1 TO %rawInpLength
         temp1(x) = RND(65,90)
         temp2(x) = RND(65,90)
    NEXT x

[Michael Mattias Member Find all posts View Profile Close Michael Mattias]

>> If @pATemp <> @pBTemp Then
==>
IF (@pATemp XOR @pbTemp) THEN

(Compiler may already be doing this for "<>" operator with integer class variables)

[Tom Hanlin Member Find all posts View Profile Close Tom Hanlin]

That's an interesting trick but, I'm not sure in what case an XOR would be any faster than an equality comparison.

[Kevin Cramer Member Find all posts View Profile Close Kevin Cramer]

I should have said that I am actually comparing two arrays og long integers. I just used strings in my example because it was a bit easier to show what I needed using strings, since the core algorithm remains the same in either case. So any special tricks for making string comparisons faster will not help me.

I am feeling that aside from ASM that the methos I came up with will not be beaten by any other method. I checked the DNA thread which essentially asked for the same thing and I think my code will probably run faster than the solutions over there too.

Thanks all for the suggestions!

Kevin