Find elements in array

[P@Anand]

Agreed with the readability compared to yours. So one more try (Just for fun :))

[crossrulz]

---

@for(imstuck) wrote:

I agree on the less iterations. But, I didn't benchmark it and can't confirm which is faster. I call a not equal node one time, you have to call search 1D array multiple times (which probably doesn't have that much overhead in this situation anyways). But, i don't think a loop iteration where the loop does nothing takes very long . Often times I will pick easier redability over possibly a little more efficient (assuming yours is more efficient) solution. I think it's much easier to look at my code and see "if not equal to zero, replace with 100". 

But, this is IMO only, and others may differ.

---

Think about what is really happening under the hood with the search 1D array.  It is a loop to exit when a certain item is found or all of the elements have been searched.  With this thought in mind, I would say NOT using the Search 1D Array would be more efficient.  It's also easier to read.

[GregFreeman]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

Think about what is really happening under the hood with the search 1D array.  It is a loop to exit when a certain item is found or all of the elements have been searched.  With this thought in mind, I would say NOT using the Search 1D Array would be more efficient.  It's also easier to read.

---

Are you sure? I thougth it was a binary search, in which case it would be faster to sort the array first, then pass it in *I believe* but am not sure.

[nathand]

---

@for(imstuck) wrote:

Are you sure? I thougth it was a binary search, in which case it would be faster to sort the array first, then pass it in *I believe* but am not sure.

---

 I suggest reading the help: "Because the search is linear, you need not sort the array before calling this function."

[altenbach]

---

@for(imstuck) wrote:
Are you sure? I thougth it was a binary search, in which case it would be faster to sort the array first, then pass it in *I believe* but am not sure.

---

Maybe one of these days, this idea will be implemented. 😄 Currently, it is not.

[GregFreeman]

---

@nathand wrote:

---

@for(imstuck) wrote:

Are you sure? I thougth it was a binary search, in which case it would be faster to sort the array first, then pass it in *I believe* but am not sure.

---

 I suggest reading the help: "Because the search is linear, you need not sort the array before calling this function."

---

HOw DO i GET To the HelP? I NEED AsSitance ImmEdiately. How do I open context help? 

[Darin.K]

The gap is closing, but there is an inescapable fact of life "C code blows away LV code".  What does that mean here?  Despite the fact that Search 1D array is equivalent to a For Loop with a condtional terminal, the search primitive is implemented in C and will smoke the For Loop.  In LV12 I get about a factor of 3 difference.

The point is not to move to C, but rather to keep in mind that the more work you keep "under the hood" (ie. in primitives), the faster your code will be.  There are a few exceptions, but those are typically a result of a blunder by NI.