Regex not working

[dunbarx]

but if the hits are put into a string, and after that is put into the result field it is pretty much the same

Hmmm. 160 ticks is 2.66 seconds. 5 ticks is almost no time at all. How could processing the results of either make the total about the same?

Craig

[FourthWorld]

for me, 10000 lines of random text, with some hit and misses, takes 5 ticks with the filter variation, and something like 160 with the for each
but if the hits are put into a string, and after that is put into the result field it is pretty much the same

so seems to me it pretty fast, but yeah, the more lines, the slower it will go

An ideal solution maintains performance relative to data size.

And position sometimes matters. In my older comparison where chunk expressions shined the filter was evaluating something like the 15th item out of 20 in each line, where RegEx's generalized parsing was (at least at that time) slightly slower than LC's chunk parsing (at least given the other factors like average item length).

[hpsh]

yeah, twice the data, is typically more than twice the time. has tried to do some sorting algorithms, and about 10000 lines seem typical to be painfully slow.
wonder how it would be with a lot more lines, and if something like putting it in an array would help.

[hpsh]

Hi Craig, i did it this way

Code: Select all

-- Sent when the mouse is released after clicking
-- pMouseButton specifies which mouse button was pressed
on mouseUp pMouseButton
   local mTicks, mText
   put the ticks into mTicks
   put empty into field "2"
   repeat for each line tLine in field "1"
      if matchtext(tLine,"[X]\d{5}") then
         put tLine&cr after mText
      end if
      
   end repeat
   put mText into field 2
   put the ticks - mTicks into field "time"
end mouseUp

cannot find how to upload the complete source code? did this not used to be a thing?