Fastest way to do a case-insensitive substring search in C/C++? - c++

Question

Note
The question below was asked in 2008 about some code from 2003. As the OP's update shows, this entire post has been obsoleted by vintage 2008 algorithms and persists here only as a historical curiosity.
I need to do a fast case-insensitive substring search in C/C++. My requirements are as follows:
Should behave like strstr() (i.e. return a pointer to the match point).
Must be case-insensitive (doh).
Must support the current locale.
Must be available on Windows (MSVC++ 8.0) or easily portable to Windows (i.e. from an open source library).
Here is the current implementation I am using (taken from the GNU C Library):
/* Return the offset of one string within another.
Copyright (C) 1994,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of the GNU C Library.
The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
Lesser General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
License along with the GNU C Library; if not, write to the Free
Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
02111-1307 USA. */
/*
* My personal strstr() implementation that beats most other algorithms.
* Until someone tells me otherwise, I assume that this is the
* fastest implementation of strstr() in C.
* I deliberately chose not to comment it. You should have at least
* as much fun trying to understand it, as I had to write it :-).
*
* Stephen R. van den Berg, berg#pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de */
/*
* Modified to use table lookup instead of tolower(), since tolower() isn't
* worth s*** on Windows.
*
* -- Anders Sandvig (anders#wincue.org)
*/
#if HAVE_CONFIG_H
# include <config.h>
#endif
#include <ctype.h>
#include <string.h>
typedef unsigned chartype;
char char_table[256];
void init_stristr(void)
{
int i;
char string[2];
string[1] = '\0';
for (i = 0; i < 256; i++)
{
string[0] = i;
_strlwr(string);
char_table[i] = string[0];
}
}
#define my_tolower(a) ((chartype) char_table[a])
char *
my_stristr (phaystack, pneedle)
const char *phaystack;
const char *pneedle;
{
register const unsigned char *haystack, *needle;
register chartype b, c;
haystack = (const unsigned char *) phaystack;
needle = (const unsigned char *) pneedle;
b = my_tolower (*needle);
if (b != '\0')
{
haystack--; /* possible ANSI violation */
do
{
c = *++haystack;
if (c == '\0')
goto ret0;
}
while (my_tolower (c) != (int) b);
c = my_tolower (*++needle);
if (c == '\0')
goto foundneedle;
++needle;
goto jin;
for (;;)
{
register chartype a;
register const unsigned char *rhaystack, *rneedle;
do
{
a = *++haystack;
if (a == '\0')
goto ret0;
if (my_tolower (a) == (int) b)
break;
a = *++haystack;
if (a == '\0')
goto ret0;
shloop:
;
}
while (my_tolower (a) != (int) b);
jin:
a = *++haystack;
if (a == '\0')
goto ret0;
if (my_tolower (a) != (int) c)
goto shloop;
rhaystack = haystack-- + 1;
rneedle = needle;
a = my_tolower (*rneedle);
if (my_tolower (*rhaystack) == (int) a)
do
{
if (a == '\0')
goto foundneedle;
++rhaystack;
a = my_tolower (*++needle);
if (my_tolower (*rhaystack) != (int) a)
break;
if (a == '\0')
goto foundneedle;
++rhaystack;
a = my_tolower (*++needle);
}
while (my_tolower (*rhaystack) == (int) a);
needle = rneedle; /* took the register-poor approach */
if (a == '\0')
break;
}
}
foundneedle:
return (char*) haystack;
ret0:
return 0;
}
Can you make this code faster, or do you know of a better implementation?
Note: I noticed that the GNU C Library now has a new implementation of strstr(), but I am not sure how easily it can be modified to be case-insensitive, or if it is in fact faster than the old one (in my case). I also noticed that the old implementation is still used for wide character strings, so if anyone knows why, please share.
Update
Just to make things clear—in case it wasn't already—I didn't write this function, it's a part of the GNU C Library. I only modified it to be case-insensitive.
Also, thanks for the tip about strcasestr() and checking out other implementations from other sources (like OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc.). It seems to be the way to go. The code above is from 2003, which is why I posted it here in hope for a better version being available, which apparently it is. :)

Answer 1

The code you posted is about half as fast as strcasestr.
$ gcc -Wall -o my_stristr my_stristr.c
steve#solaris:~/code/tmp
$ gcc -Wall -o strcasestr strcasestr.c
steve#solaris:~/code/tmp
$ ./bench ./my_stristr > my_stristr.result ; ./bench ./strcasestr > strcasestr.result;
steve#solaris:~/code/tmp
$ cat my_stristr.result
run 1... time = 6.32
run 2... time = 6.31
run 3... time = 6.31
run 4... time = 6.31
run 5... time = 6.32
run 6... time = 6.31
run 7... time = 6.31
run 8... time = 6.31
run 9... time = 6.31
run 10... time = 6.31
average user time over 10 runs = 6.3120
steve#solaris:~/code/tmp
$ cat strcasestr.result
run 1... time = 3.82
run 2... time = 3.82
run 3... time = 3.82
run 4... time = 3.82
run 5... time = 3.82
run 6... time = 3.82
run 7... time = 3.82
run 8... time = 3.82
run 9... time = 3.82
run 10... time = 3.82
average user time over 10 runs = 3.8200
steve#solaris:~/code/tmp
The main function was:
int main(void)
{
char * needle="hello";
char haystack[1024];
int i;
for(i=0;i<sizeof(haystack)-strlen(needle)-1;++i)
{
haystack[i]='A'+i%57;
}
memcpy(haystack+i,needle, strlen(needle)+1);
/*printf("%s\n%d\n", haystack, haystack[strlen(haystack)]);*/
init_stristr();
for (i=0;i<1000000;++i)
{
/*my_stristr(haystack, needle);*/
strcasestr(haystack,needle);
}
return 0;
}
It was suitably modified to test both implementations. I notice as I am typing this up I left in the init_stristr call, but it shouldn't change things too much. bench is just a simple shell script:
#!/bin/bash
function bc_calc()
{
echo $(echo "scale=4;$1" | bc)
}
time="/usr/bin/time -p"
prog="$1"
accum=0
runs=10
for a in $(jot $runs 1 $runs)
do
echo -n "run $a... "
t=$($time $prog 2>&1| grep user | awk '{print $2}')
echo "time = $t"
accum=$(bc_calc "$accum+$t")
done
echo -n "average user time over $runs runs = "
echo $(bc_calc "$accum/$runs")

Answer 2

You can use StrStrI function which finds the first occurrence of a substring within a string. The comparison is not case-sensitive.
Don't forget to include its header - Shlwapi.h.
Check this out: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb773439(v=vs.85).aspx

Answer 3

use boost string algo. It is available, cross platform, and only a header file (no library to link in). Not to mention that you should be using boost anyway.
#include <boost/algorithm/string/find.hpp>
const char* istrstr( const char* haystack, const char* needle )
{
using namespace boost;
iterator_range<char*> result = ifind_first( haystack, needle );
if( result ) return result.begin();
return NULL;
}

Answer 4

For platform independent use:
const wchar_t *szk_wcsstri(const wchar_t *s1, const wchar_t *s2)
{
if (s1 == NULL || s2 == NULL) return NULL;
const wchar_t *cpws1 = s1, *cpws1_, *cpws2;
char ch1, ch2;
bool bSame;
while (*cpws1 != L'\0')
{
bSame = true;
if (*cpws1 != *s2)
{
ch1 = towlower(*cpws1);
ch2 = towlower(*s2);
if (ch1 == ch2)
bSame = true;
}
if (true == bSame)
{
cpws1_ = cpws1;
cpws2 = s2;
while (*cpws1_ != L'\0')
{
ch1 = towlower(*cpws1_);
ch2 = towlower(*cpws2);
if (ch1 != ch2)
break;
cpws2++;
if (*cpws2 == L'\0')
return cpws1_-(cpws2 - s2 - 0x01);
cpws1_++;
}
}
cpws1++;
}
return NULL;
}

Answer 5

Why do you use _strlwr(string); in init_stristr()? It's not a standard function. Presumably it's for locale support, but as it's not standard, I'd just use:
char_table[i] = tolower(i);

Answer 6

I'd advice you to take some of the common strcasestr implementation that already exists. For example of glib, glibc, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc. You can search for more with google.com/codesearch. You can then make some performance measurements and compare the different implementation.

Answer 7

Assuming both input strings are already lowercase.
int StringInStringFindFirst(const char* p_cText, const char* p_cSearchText)
{
int iTextSize = strlen(p_cText);
int iSearchTextSize = strlen(p_cSearchText);
char* p_cFound = NULL;
if(iTextSize >= iSearchTextSize)
{
int iCounter = 0;
while((iCounter + iSearchTextSize) <= iTextSize)
{
if(memcmp( (p_cText + iCounter), p_cSearchText, iSearchTextSize) == 0)
return iCounter;
iCounter ++;
}
}
return -1;
}
You could also, try using masks... if for example most of the strings you are going to compare only contains chars from a to z, maybe it's worth to do something like this.
long GetStringMask(const char* p_cText)
{
long lMask=0;
while(*p_cText != '\0')
{
if (*p_cText>='a' && *p_cText<='z')
lMask = lMask | (1 << (*p_cText - 'a') );
else if(*p_cText != ' ')
{
lMask = 0;
break;
}
p_cText ++;
}
return lMask;
}
Then...
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
char* p_cText = "this is a test";
char* p_cSearchText = "test";
long lTextMask = GetStringMask(p_cText);
long lSearchMask = GetStringMask(p_cSearchText);
int iFoundAt = -1;
// If Both masks are Valid
if(lTextMask != 0 && lSearchMask != 0)
{
if((lTextMask & lSearchMask) == lSearchMask)
{
iFoundAt = StringInStringFindFirst(p_cText, p_cSearchText);
}
}
else
{
iFoundAt = StringInStringFindFirst(p_cText, p_cSearchText);
}
return 0;
}

Answer 8

This will not consider the locale, but If you can change the IS_ALPHA and TO_UPPER you can make it to consider it.
#define IS_ALPHA(c) (((c) >= 'A' && (c) <= 'Z') || ((c) >= 'a' && (c) <= 'z'))
#define TO_UPPER(c) ((c) & 0xDF)
char * __cdecl strstri (const char * str1, const char * str2){
char *cp = (char *) str1;
char *s1, *s2;
if ( !*str2 )
return((char *)str1);
while (*cp){
s1 = cp;
s2 = (char *) str2;
while ( *s1 && *s2 && (IS_ALPHA(*s1) && IS_ALPHA(*s2))?!(TO_UPPER(*s1) - TO_UPPER(*s2)):!(*s1-*s2))
++s1, ++s2;
if (!*s2)
return(cp);
++cp;
}
return(NULL);
}

Answer 9

If you want to shed CPU cycles, you might consider this - let's assume that we're dealing with ASCII and not Unicode.
Make a static table with 256 entries. Each entry in the table is 256 bits.
To test whether or not two characters are equal, you do something like this:
if (BitLookup(table[char1], char2)) { /* match */ }
To build the table, you set a bit everywhere in table[char1] where you consider it a match for char2. So in building the table you would set the bits at the index for 'a' and 'A' in the 'a'th entry (and the 'A'th entry).
Now this is going to be slowish to do the bit lookup (bit look up will be a shift, mask and add most likely), so you could use instead a table of bytes so you use 8 bits to represent 1 bit. This will take 32K - so hooray - you've hit a time/space trade-off! We might want to make the table more flexible, so let's say we do this instead - the table will define congruences instead.
Two characters are considered congruent if and only if there is a function that defines them as equivalent. So 'A' and 'a' are congruent for case insensitivity. 'A', 'À', 'Á' and 'Â' are congruent for diacritical insensitivity.
So you define bitfields that correspond to your congruencies
#define kCongruentCase (1 << 0)
#define kCongruentDiacritical (1 << 1)
#define kCongruentVowel (1 << 2)
#define kCongruentConsonant (1 << 3)
Then your test is something like this:
inline bool CharsAreCongruent(char c1, char c2, unsigned char congruency)
{
return (_congruencyTable[c1][c2] & congruency) != 0;
}
#define CaseInsensitiveCharEqual(c1, c2) CharsAreCongruent(c1, c2, kCongruentCase)
This kind of bit fiddling with ginormous tables is the heart of ctype, by the by.

Answer 10

If you can control the needle string so that it is always in lower case, then you can write a modified version of stristr() to avoid the lookups for that, and thus speed up the code. It isn't as general, but it can be faster - slightly faster. Similar comments apply to the haystack, but you are more likely to be reading the haystack from sources outside your control for you cannot be certain that the data meets the requirement.
Whether the gain in performance is worth it is another question altogether. For 99% of applications, the answer is "No, it is not worth it". Your application might be one of the tiny minority where it matters. More likely, it is not.