Let's say there has a string like " world ". This String only has the blank at front and end. Is the trim() faster than replace()?
I used the replace once and my mentor said don't use it since the trim() probably faster.
If not, what's the advantage of trim() than replace()?
If we look at the source code for the methods:
replace():
public String replace(CharSequence target, CharSequence replacement) {
String tgtStr = target.toString();
String replStr = replacement.toString();
int j = indexOf(tgtStr);
if (j < 0) {
return this;
}
int tgtLen = tgtStr.length();
int tgtLen1 = Math.max(tgtLen, 1);
int thisLen = length();
int newLenHint = thisLen - tgtLen + replStr.length();
if (newLenHint < 0) {
throw new OutOfMemoryError();
}
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(newLenHint);
int i = 0;
do {
sb.append(this, i, j).append(replStr);
i = j + tgtLen;
} while (j < thisLen && (j = indexOf(tgtStr, j + tgtLen1)) > 0);
return sb.append(this, i, thisLen).toString()
}
Vs trim():
public String trim() {
int len = value.length;
int st = 0;
char[] val = value; /* avoid getfield opcode */
while ((st < len) && (val[st] <= ' ')) {
st++;
}
while ((st < len) && (val[len - 1] <= ' ')) {
len--;
}
return ((st > 0) || (len < value.length)) ? substring(st, len) : this;
}
As you can see replace() calls multiple other methods and iterates throughout the entire String, while trim() simply iterates over the beginning and ending of the String until the character isn't a white space. So in the single respect of trying to only remove white space before and after a word, trim() is more efficient.
We can run some benchmarks on this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
long testStartTime = System.nanoTime();;
trimTest();
long trimTestTime = System.nanoTime() - testStartTime;
testStartTime = System.nanoTime();
replaceTest();
long replaceTime = System.nanoTime() - testStartTime;
System.out.println("Time for trim(): " + trimTestTime);
System.out.println("Time for replace(): " + replaceTime);
}
public static void trimTest() {
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i ++) {
new String(" string ").trim();
}
}
public static void replaceTest() {
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i ++) {
new String(" string ").replace(" ", "");
}
}
Output:
Time for trim(): 53303903
Time for replace(): 485536597
//432,232,694 difference
Assuming that the people writing the Java library code are doing a good job1, you can assume that a special purpose method (like trim()) will be as fast, and probably faster than a general purpose method (like replace(...)) doing the same thing.
Two reasons:
If the special purpose method is slower, its implementation can be rewritten as equivalent calls to the general purpose one, making the performance equivalent in most cases. A competent programmer will do this because it reduces maintenance costs.
In the special purpose method, it is likely that there will be optimizations that can be made that don't apply in the general-purpose case.
In this case we know that trim() only needs to look at the start and end of the string ... whereas replace(...) needs to look at all of the characters in the string. (We can infer this from the description of what the respective methods do.)
If we assume "competence" then we can infer that the developers will have done the analysis and not implemented trim() sub-optimally2; i.e. they won't code trim() to examine all characters.
There is another reason to use the special purpose method over the general purpose. It makes your code simpler, easier to read, and easier to inspect for correctness. This may well be more important than performance.
This clearly applies in the case of trim() versus replace(...).
1 - We can in this case. There are lots of eyes looking at this code, and lots of people who will complain loudly about egregious performance issues.
2 - Unfortunately, it is not always as straightforward as this. A library method needs to be optimized for "typical" behavior, but it also needs to avoid pathological performance in edge-cases. It is not always possible to achieve both things.
trim() is definitely faster to type, yes. It doesn't take any parameters.
It is also much faster to understand what you where trying to do. You were trying to trim the string, rather than replacing all the spaces it contains with the empty string, knowing from other context that there is only space at the beginning and the end of the string.
Indeed much faster no matter how you look at it. Don't complicate the life of the persons who're trying to read your code. Most of the time, it will be you months later, or at least someone you don't hate.
Trim will prune the outter characters until they are non white space. I believe they trim space, tab, and new lines.
Replace will scan the entire string (so, it could be a sentense) and would replace inner " " with "", essentially compressing them together.
They have different use cases though, obviously 1 is to clean up user input where the other is to update a string where matches are found with something else.
That being said, run times: Replace will run in N time, as it will look for all matching characters. Trim will run in O(N), but most likely a just a few characters off of each end.
The idea behind trim i think came around from people would would type and input things but accidentally press space before submitting their forms, essentially trying to save the field "Foo " instead of "Foo"
s.trim() shortens a String s. This means no characters has to be moved from an index to another. It starts at the first character (s.toCharArray()[0]) of the String and shortens the String character by character until the first non-whitespace character occurs. It works the same way to shorten the String at the end. So it compresses the String. If a String has no leading and trailing whitespace trim will be ready after checking the first and the last character.
In case of " world ".trim() two steps are needed: one to remove the first leading whitespace as it is on the first index and the the second to remove the last whitespace as it is on the last index.
" world ".replace(" ", "") will need at least n = " world ".length() steps. It has to check every character if it has to be replaced. But if we take into account that the implementation of String.replace(...) needs to compile a Pattern, build a Matcher and then to replace all the matched regions it's seems far complex comparing to shorten a String.
We also have to consider that " world ".replace(" ", "") does not replace whitespaces but only the String " ". Since String replace(CharSequence target, CharSequence replacement) compiles the target using Pattern.LITERAL we cannot use the character class \s. To be more accurate we would have to compare " world ".trim() to " world ".replaceAll("\\s", ""). It is still not the same because a whitespace in String trim() is defined as c <= ' ' for each c in s.toCharArray().
Summarizing: String.trim() should be faster - especially for long strings
The description how the methods work is based on the implementation of String in Java 8. But implementations can change.
But the question should be: What do you intent to do with the string? Do you want to trim it or to replace some characters? According to it use the corresponding method.
Related
I am new to Java, and I'm trying to figure out how to count Characters in the given string and threat a combination of two characters "eu" as a single character, and still count all other characters as one character.
And I want to do that using recursion.
Consider the following example.
Input:
"geugeu"
Desired output:
4 // g + eu + g + eu = 4
Current output:
2
I've been trying a lot and still can't seem to figure out how to implement it correctly.
My code:
public static int recursionCount(String str) {
if (str.length() == 1) {
return 0;
}
else {
String ch = str.substring(0, 2);
if (ch.equals("eu") {
return 1 + recursionCount(str.substring(1));
}
else {
return recursionCount(str.substring(1));
}
}
}
OP wants to count all characters in a string but adjacent characters "ae", "oe", "ue", and "eu" should be considered a single character and counted only once.
Below code does that:
public static int recursionCount(String str) {
int n;
n = str.length();
if(n <= 1) {
return n; // return 1 if one character left or 0 if empty string.
}
else {
String ch = str.substring(0, 2);
if(ch.equals("ae") || ch.equals("oe") || ch.equals("ue") || ch.equals("eu")) {
// consider as one character and skip next character
return 1 + recursionCount(str.substring(2));
}
else {
// don't skip next character
return 1 + recursionCount(str.substring(1));
}
}
}
Recursion explained
In order to address a particular task using Recursion, you need a firm understanding of how recursion works.
And the first thing you need to keep in mind is that every recursive solution should (either explicitly or implicitly) contain two parts: Base case and Recursive case.
Let's have a look at them closely:
Base case - a part that represents a simple edge-case (or a set of edge-cases), i.e. a situation in which recursion should terminate. The outcome for these edge-cases is known in advance. For this task, base case is when the given string is empty, and since there's nothing to count the return value should be 0. That is sufficient for the algorithm to work, outcomes for other inputs should be derived from the recursive case.
Recursive case - is the part of the method where recursive calls are made and where the main logic resides. Every recursive call eventually hits the base case and stars building its return value.
In the recursive case, we need to check whether the given string starts from a particular string like "eu". And for that we don't need to generate a substring (keep in mind that object creation is costful). instead we can use method String.startsWith() which checks if the bytes of the provided prefix string match the bytes at the beginning of this string which is chipper (reminder: starting from Java 9 String is backed by an array of bytes, and each character is represented either with one or two bytes depending on the character encoding) and we also don't bother about the length of the string because if the string is shorter than the prefix startsWith() will return false.
Implementation
That said, here's how an implementation might look:
public static int recursionCount(String str) {
if(str.isEmpty()) {
return 0;
}
return str.startsWith("eu") ?
1 + recursionCount(str.substring(2)) : 1 + recursionCount(str.substring(1));
}
Note: that besides from being able to implement a solution, you also need to evaluate it's Time and Space complexity.
In this case because we are creating a new string with every call time complexity is quadratic O(n^2) (reminder: creation of the new string requires allocating the memory to coping bytes of the original string). And worse case space complexity also would be O(n^2).
There's a way of solving this problem recursively in a linear time O(n) without generating a new string at every call. For that we need to introduce the second argument - current index, and each recursive call should advance this index either by 1 or by 2 (I'm not going to implement this solution and living it for OP/reader as an exercise).
In addition
In addition, here's a concise and simple non-recursive solution using String.replace():
public static int count(String str) {
return str.replace("eu", "_").length();
}
If you would need handle multiple combination of character (which were listed in the first version of the question) you can make use of the regular expressions with String.replaceAll():
public static int count(String str) {
return str.replaceAll("ue|au|oe|eu", "_").length();
}
I have over a gigabyte of text that I need to go through and surround punctuation with spaces (tokenizing). I have a long regular expression (1818 characters, though that's mostly lists) that defines when punctuation should not be separated. Being long and complicated makes it hard to use groups with it, though I wouldn't leave that out as an option since I could make most groups non-capturing (?:).
Question: How can I efficiently replace certain characters that don't match a particular regular expression?
I've looked into using lookaheads or similar, and I haven't quite figured it out, but it seems to be terribly inefficient anyway. It would likely be better than using placeholders though.
I can't seem to find a good "replace with a bunch of different regular expressions for both finding and replacing in one pass" function.
Should I do this line by line instead of operating on the whole text?
String completeRegex = "[^\\w](("+protectedPrefixes+")|(("+protectedNumericOnly+")\\s*\\p{N}))|"+protectedRegex;
Matcher protectedM = Pattern.compile(completeRegex).matcher(s);
ArrayList<String> protectedStrs = new ArrayList<String>();
//Take note of the protected matches.
while (protectedM.find()) {
protectedStrs.add(protectedM.group());
}
//Replace protected matches.
String replaceStr = "<PROTECTED>";
s = protectedM.replaceAll(replaceStr);
//Now that it's safe, separate punctuation.
s = s.replaceAll("([^\\p{L}\\p{N}\\p{Mn}_\\-<>'])"," $1 ");
// These are for apostrophes. Can these be combined with either the protecting regular expression or the one above?
s = s.replaceAll("([\\p{N}\\p{L}])'(\\p{L})", "$1 '$2");
s = s.replaceAll("([^\\p{L}])'([^\\p{L}])", "$1 ' $2");
Note the two additional replacements for apostrophes. Using placeholders protects against those replacements as well, but I'm not really concerned with apostrophes or single quotes in my protecting regex anyway, so it's not a real concern.
I'm rewriting what I considered very inefficient Perl code with my own in Java, keeping track of speed, and things were going fine until I started replacing the placeholders with the original strings. With that addition it's too slow to be reasonable (I've never seen it get even close to finishing).
//Replace placeholders with original text.
String resultStr = "";
String currentStr = "";
int currentPos = 0;
int[] protectedArray = replaceStr.codePoints().toArray();
int protectedLen = protectedArray.length;
int[] strArray = s.codePoints().toArray();
int protectedCount = 0;
for (int i=0; i<strArray.length; i++) {
int pt = strArray[i];
// System.out.println("pt: "+pt+" symbol: "+String.valueOf(Character.toChars(pt)));
if (protectedArray[currentPos]==pt) {
if (currentPos == protectedLen - 1) {
resultStr += protectedStrs.get(protectedCount);
protectedCount++;
currentPos = 0;
} else {
currentPos++;
}
} else {
if (currentPos > 0) {
resultStr += replaceStr.substring(0, currentPos);
currentPos = 0;
currentStr = "";
}
resultStr += ParseUtils.getSymbol(pt);
}
}
s = resultStr;
This code may not be the most efficient way to return the protected matches. What is a better way? Or better yet, how can I replace punctuation without having to use placeholders?
I don't know exactly how big your in-between strings are, but I suspect that you can do somewhat better than using Matcher.replaceAll, speed-wise.
You're doing 3 passes across the string, each time creating a new Matcher instance, and then creating a new String; and because you're using + to concatenate the strings, you're creating a new string which is the concatenation of the in-between string and the protected group, and then another string when you concatenate this to the current result. You don't really need all of these extra instances.
Firstly, you should accumulate the resultStr in a StringBuilder, rather than via direct string concatenation. Then you can proceed something like:
StringBuilder resultStr = new StringBuilder();
int currIndex = 0;
while (protectedM.find()) {
protectedStrs.add(protectedM.group());
appendInBetween(resultStr, str, current, protectedM.str());
resultStr.append(protectedM.group());
currIndex = protectedM.end();
}
resultStr.append(str, currIndex, str.length());
where appendInBetween is a method implementing the equivalent to the replacements, just in a single pass:
void appendInBetween(StringBuilder resultStr, String s, int start, int end) {
// Pass the whole input string and the bounds, rather than taking a substring.
// Allocate roughly enough space up-front.
resultStr.ensureCapacity(resultStr.length() + end - start);
for (int i = start; i < end; ++i) {
char c = s.charAt(i);
// Check if c matches "([^\\p{L}\\p{N}\\p{Mn}_\\-<>'])".
if (!(Character.isLetter(c)
|| Character.isDigit(c)
|| Character.getType(c) == Character.NON_SPACING_MARK
|| "_\\-<>'".indexOf(c) != -1)) {
resultStr.append(' ');
resultStr.append(c);
resultStr.append(' ');
} else if (c == '\'' && i > 0 && i + 1 < s.length()) {
// We have a quote that's not at the beginning or end.
// Call these 3 characters bcd, where c is the quote.
char b = s.charAt(i - 1);
char d = s.charAt(i + 1);
if ((Character.isDigit(b) || Character.isLetter(b)) && Character.isLetter(d)) {
// If the 3 chars match "([\\p{N}\\p{L}])'(\\p{L})"
resultStr.append(' ');
resultStr.append(c);
} else if (!Character.isLetter(b) && !Character.isLetter(d)) {
// If the 3 chars match "([^\\p{L}])'([^\\p{L}])"
resultStr.append(' ');
resultStr.append(c);
resultStr.append(' ');
} else {
resultStr.append(c);
}
} else {
// Everything else, just append.
resultStr.append(c);
}
}
}
Ideone demo
Obviously, there is a maintenance cost associated with this code - it is undeniably more verbose. But the advantage of doing it explicitly like this (aside from the fact it is just a single pass) is that you can debug the code like any other - rather than it just being the black box that regexes are.
I'd be interested to know if this works any faster for you!
At first I thought that appendReplacement wasn't what I was looking for, but indeed it was. Since it's replacing the placeholders at the end that slowed things down, all I really needed was a way to dynamically replace matches:
StringBuffer replacedBuff = new StringBuffer();
Matcher replaceM = Pattern.compile(replaceStr).matcher(s);
int index = 0;
while (replaceM.find()) {
replaceM.appendReplacement(replacedBuff, "");
replacedBuff.append(protectedStrs.get(index));
index++;
}
replaceM.appendTail(replacedBuff);
s = replacedBuff.toString();
Reference: Second answer at this question.
Another option to consider:
During the first pass through the String, to find the protected Strings, take the start and end indices of each match, replace the punctuation for everything outside of the match, add the matched String, and then keep going. This takes away the need to write a String with placeholders, and requires only one pass through the entire String. It does, however, require many separate small replacement operations. (By the way, be sure to compile the patterns before the loop, as opposed to using String.replaceAll()). A similar alternative is to add the unprotected substrings together, and then replace them all at the same time. However, the protected strings would then have to be added to the replaced string at the end, so I doubt this would save time.
int currIndex = 0;
while (protectedM.find()) {
protectedStrs.add(protectedM.group());
String substr = s.substring(currIndex,protectedM.start());
substr = p1.matcher(substr).replaceAll(" $1 ");
substr = p2.matcher(substr).replaceAll("$1 '$2");
substr = p3.matcher(substr).replaceAll("$1 ' $2");
resultStr += substr+protectedM.group();
currIndex = protectedM.end();
}
Speed comparison for 100,000 lines of text:
Original Perl script: 272.960579875 seconds
My first attempt: Too long to finish.
With appendReplacement(): 14.245160866 seconds
Replacing while finding protected: 68.691842962 seconds
Thank you, Java, for not letting me down.
I have:
String str = "Hello, how, are, you";
I want to create a helper method that removes the commas from any string. Which of the following is more accurate?
private static String removeComma(String str){
if(str.contains(",")){
str = str.replaceAll(",","");
}
return str;
}
OR
private static String removeComma(String str){
str = str.replaceAll(",","");
return str;
}
Seems like I don't need the IF statement but there might be a case where I do.
If there is a better way let me know.
Both are functionally equivalent but the former is more verbose and will probably be slower because it runs an extra operation.
Also note that you don't need replaceAll (which accepts a regular expression): replace will do.
So I would go for:
private static String removeComma(String str){
return str.replace(",", "");
}
The IF statement is unnecessary, unless you're handling "large" strings (we're talking megabytes or more).
If you're using the IF statement, your code will first search for the first occurance of a comma, and then execute the replacement. This could be costly if the comma is near the end of the string and your string is large, since it will have to be traversed twice.
Without the IF statement, commas will be replaced if they exist. If the answer is negative, your string will be untouched.
Bottom rule: use the version without the IF statement.
Both are correct, but the second one is cleaner since the IF statement of the first alternative is not needed.
It's a matter of what is the probability to have strings with comma in your universe of strings.
If you have a high probability, call the method replaceAll without checking first.
BUT If you are not using extremely huge strings, I guess you will see no difference in perfomance at all.
Just another solution with time complexity O(n), space complexity O(n):
public static String removeComma(String str){
int length = str.length();
StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
char c = str.charAt(i);
if (c != ',') {
sb.append(c);
}
}
return sb.toString();
}
which of the following is an efficient way to reverse words in a string ?
public String Reverse(StringTokenizer st){
String[] words = new String[st.countTokens()];
int i = 0;
while(st.hasMoreTokens()){
words[i] = st.nextToken();i++}
for(int j = words.length-1;j--)
output = words[j]+" ";}
OR
public String Reverse(StringTokenizer st, String output){
if(!st.hasMoreTokens()) return output;
output = st.nextToken()+" "+output;
return Reverse(st, output);}
public String ReverseMain(StringTokenizer st){
return Reverse(st, "");}
while the first way seems more readable and straight forward, there are two loops in it. In the 2nd method, I've tried doing it in tail-recursive way. But I am not sure whether java does optimize tail-recursive code.
you could do this in just one loop
public String Reverse(StringTokenizer st){
int length = st.countTokens();
String[] words = new String[length];
int i = length - 1;
while(i >= 0){
words[i] = st.nextToken();i--}
}
But I am not sure whether java does optimize tail-recursive code.
It doesn't. Or at least the Sun/Oracle Java implementations don't, up to and including Java 7.
References:
"Tail calls in the VM" by John Rose # Oracle.
Bug 4726340 - RFE: Tail Call Optimization
I don't know whether this makes one solution faster than the other. (Test it yourself ... taking care to avoid the standard micro-benchmarking traps.)
However, the fact that Java doesn't implement tail-call optimization means that the 2nd solution is liable to run out of stack space if you give it a string with a large (enough) number of words.
Finally, if you are looking for a more space efficient way to implement this, there is clever way that uses just a StringBuilder.
Create a StringBuilder from your input String
Reverse the characters in the StringBuilder using reverse().
Step through the StringBuilder, identifying the start and end offset of each word. For each start/end offset pair, reverse the characters between the offsets. (You have to do this using a loop.)
Turn the StringBuilder back into a String.
You can test results by timing both of them on a large amount of results
eg. You reverse 100000000 strings and see how many seconds it takes. You could also compare start and end system timestamps to get the exact difference between the two functions.
StringTokenizer is not deprecated but if you read the current JavaDoc...
StringTokenizer is a legacy class that is retained for compatibility reasons although its use is discouraged in new code. It is recommended that anyone seeking this functionality use the split method of String or the java.util.regex package instead.
String[] strArray = str.split(" ");
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for (int i = strArray.length() - 1; i >= 0; i--)
sb.append(strArray[i]).append(" ");
String reversedWords = sb.substring(0, sb.length -1) // strip trailing space
I need to trim a String in java so that:
The quick brown fox jumps over the laz dog.
becomes
The quick brown...
In the example above, I'm trimming to 12 characters. If I just use substring I would get:
The quick br...
I already have a method for doing this using substring, but I wanted to know what is the fastest (most efficient) way to do this because a page may have many trim operations.
The only way I can think off is to split the string on spaces and put it back together until its length passes the given length. Is there an other way? Perhaps a more efficient way in which I can use the same method to do a "soft" trim where I preserve the last word (as shown in the example above) and a hard trim which is pretty much a substring.
Thanks,
Below is a method I use to trim long strings in my webapps.
The "soft" boolean as you put it, if set to true will preserve the last word.
This is the most concise way of doing it that I could come up with that uses a StringBuffer which is a lot more efficient than recreating a string which is immutable.
public static String trimString(String string, int length, boolean soft) {
if(string == null || string.trim().isEmpty()){
return string;
}
StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(string);
int actualLength = length - 3;
if(sb.length() > actualLength){
// -3 because we add 3 dots at the end. Returned string length has to be length including the dots.
if(!soft)
return escapeHtml(sb.insert(actualLength, "...").substring(0, actualLength+3));
else {
int endIndex = sb.indexOf(" ",actualLength);
return escapeHtml(sb.insert(endIndex,"...").substring(0, endIndex+3));
}
}
return string;
}
Update
I've changed the code so that the ... is appended in the StringBuffer, this is to prevent needless creations of String implicitly which is slow and wasteful.
Note: escapeHtml is a static import from apache commons:
import static org.apache.commons.lang.StringEscapeUtils.escapeHtml;
You can remove it and the code should work the same.
Here is a simple, regex-based, 1-line solution:
str.replaceAll("(?<=.{12})\\b.*", "..."); // How easy was that!? :)
Explanation:
(?<=.{12}) is a negative look behind, which asserts that there are at least 12 characters to the left of the match, but it is a non-capturing (ie zero-width) match
\b.* matches the first word boundary (after at least 12 characters - above) to the end
This is replaced with "..."
Here's a test:
public static void main(String[] args) {
String input = "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.";
String trimmed = input.replaceAll("(?<=.{12})\\b.*", "...");
System.out.println(trimmed);
}
Output:
The quick brown...
If performance is an issue, pre-compile the regex for an approximately 5x speed up (YMMV) by compiling it once:
static Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile("(?<=.{12})\\b.*");
and reusing it:
String trimmed = pattern.matcher(input).replaceAll("...");
Please try following code:
private String trim(String src, int size) {
if (src.length() <= size) return src;
int pos = src.lastIndexOf(" ", size - 3);
if (pos < 0) return src.substring(0, size);
return src.substring(0, pos) + "...";
}
Try searching for the last occurence of a space that is in a position less or more than 11 and trim the string there, by adding "...".
Your requirements aren't clear. If you have trouble articulating them in a natural language, it's no surprise that they'll be difficult to translate into a computer language like Java.
"preserve the last word" implies that the algorithm will know what a "word" is, so you'll have to tell it that first. The split is a way to do it. A scanner/parser with a grammar is another.
I'd worry about making it work before I concerned myself with efficiency. Make it work, measure it, then see what you can do about performance. Everything else is speculation without data.
How about:
mystring = mystring.replaceAll("^(.{12}.*?)\b.*$", "$1...");
I use this hack : suppose that the trimmed string must have 120 of length :
String textToDisplay = textToTrim.substring(0,(textToTrim.length() > 120) ? 120 : textToTrim.length());
if (textToDisplay.lastIndexOf(' ') != textToDisplay.length() &&textToDisplay.length()!=textToTrim().length()) {
textToDisplay = textToDisplay + textToTrim.substring(textToDisplay.length(),textToTrim.indexOf(" ", textToDisplay.length()-1))+ " ...";
}