For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would make the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", , strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be approx 1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", , strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS


"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I put your code within a loop of 50 and ran each case 4 times. I saw no
difference. It varied by run which was faster, but the difference was never
more than 2/10ths of a percent.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy


"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS


"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

That was the average of 50 values/runs with compared to the average of 50
values/runs without.

4 such comparisons.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy




"Tom Ogilvy" wrote in message
...
I put your code within a loop of 50 and ran each case 4 times. I saw no
difference. It varied by run which was faster, but the difference was
never more than 2/10ths of a percent.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy


"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS


"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I couldn't see a difference either, but the book I mentioned states:

Although placing the counter variable after the Next statement is optional,
it greatly improves
the readability of your program code. Also, VBA does not have to spend time
determining which
counter variable belongs with that Next statement, and your loops execute
faster.
(page 376)

It seems though that VBA knows already at compile time what counter variable
belongs to what
For because when I do this:

For i = 0 to 10
For c = 0 to 5
'code
Next i
Next c

It won't compile: Invalid Next control variable reference.

I just take it that it won't make a difference, but it looks better.

RBS



"Tom Ogilvy" wrote in message
...
I put your code within a loop of 50 and ran each case 4 times. I saw no
difference. It varied by run which was faster, but the difference was
never more than 2/10ths of a percent.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy


"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS


"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000, "###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message ...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I get similar figures with your exact code, which is a nuisance as I have
spent more
than an hour adding all the counter variables to a large .xla file!
Not sure now why I didn't see this difference with the previous code.

RBS


"Jim Cone" wrote in message
...
With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000,
"###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

Times shown are the average of the 50 loops. Times in milliseconds

Run1
352.78 Without
351.88 With
0.002551165 proportional difference

Run 2
352.18 Without
352.5 With
0.000907801 Proportional difference

Run 3
352.2 Without
351.88 With
0.000908575 Proportional difference

Run 4
352.5 Without
353.44 With
0.00265957 Proportional difference


----------------------------------------------
Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
Debug.Print timeGetTime() - lStartTime
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
Dim k As Long
For k = 1 To 50
StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next
StopSW
Next k

Debug.Print ' put in a blank line to separate results

For k = 1 To 50
StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next c
Next i
StopSW
Next k
End Sub

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"Jim Cone" wrote in message
...
With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000,
"###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I think I didn't see the difference as it needs a forced recompile. When I
do that it seems that indeed leaving
the counter variable out is faster.

RBS

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I get similar figures with your exact code, which is a nuisance as I have
spent more
than an hour adding all the counter variables to a large .xla file!
Not sure now why I didn't see this difference with the previous code.

RBS


"Jim Cone" wrote in message
...
With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000,
"###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it
looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next
would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made
it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, RB Smissaert wrote:

Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would make the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

I can't imagine why it would make a difference. The first time the code is
run it gets pseudo-compiled. Both would compile to the same thing. Any
difference you might get (like the 1%) would come from one case having to
compile first, and the other case not having to. So before any comparison
you should press Debug - Compile to put both on equal footing.

Don <www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I did compile Jim's code before running both options and still I had the
same difference as he had.
For some reason now however I can't reproduce that anymore.
I agree that logically one would expect it to be the same and I think now
that it is indeed the same.
So, luckily I didn't waste an hour's work then!

RBS


"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, RB Smissaert wrote:

Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

I can't imagine why it would make a difference. The first time the code is
run it gets pseudo-compiled. Both would compile to the same thing. Any
difference you might get (like the 1%) would come from one case having to
compile first, and the other case not having to. So before any comparison
you should press Debug - Compile to put both on equal footing.

Don <www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

using Jim's code:

With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .500 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds

Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds

With: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .343 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds

With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .359 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds

Except for the first run "with" variables on the end of the Next statement,
there isn't a difference.

If I alternate on each run:
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds


Why the first time anomaly - could depend on what else the system is doing.
Code timing in a multitasking environment is difficult

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I get similar figures with your exact code, which is a nuisance as I have
spent more
than an hour adding all the counter variables to a large .xla file!
Not sure now why I didn't see this difference with the previous code.

RBS


"Jim Cone" wrote in message
...
With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000,
"###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it
looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next
would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made
it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

Yes, thanks, I can see now that the timings are the same.
Maybe it was different in Excel 97 and that might explain the book
statement.

RBS

"Tom Ogilvy" wrote in message
...
using Jim's code:

With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .500 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds

Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds

With: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .343 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds

With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .359 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds

Except for the first run "with" variables on the end of the Next
statement, there isn't a difference.

If I alternate on each run:
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds


Why the first time anomaly - could depend on what else the system is
doing. Code timing in a multitasking environment is difficult

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I get similar figures with your exact code, which is a nuisance as I have
spent more
than an hour adding all the counter variables to a large .xla file!
Not sure now why I didn't see this difference with the previous code.

RBS


"Jim Cone" wrote in message
...
With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000,
"###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it
looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next
would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made
it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

Who is the author.

Like you, maybe they were easily persuaded by 5 samples when 200 samples
spoke otherwise.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Yes, thanks, I can see now that the timings are the same.
Maybe it was different in Excel 97 and that might explain the book
statement.

RBS

"Tom Ogilvy" wrote in message
...
using Jim's code:

With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .500 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds

Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds

With: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .343 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds

With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .359 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds

Except for the first run "with" variables on the end of the Next
statement, there isn't a difference.

If I alternate on each run:
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds


Why the first time anomaly - could depend on what else the system is
doing. Code timing in a multitasking environment is difficult

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I get similar figures with your exact code, which is a nuisance as I have
spent more
than an hour adding all the counter variables to a large .xla file!
Not sure now why I didn't see this difference with the previous code.

RBS


"Jim Cone" wrote in message
...
With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000,
"###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it
looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to
be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing
direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next
would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made
it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", ,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

Author is Matthew Harris.

RBS


"Tom Ogilvy" wrote in message
...
Who is the author.

Like you, maybe they were easily persuaded by 5 samples when 200 samples
spoke otherwise.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Yes, thanks, I can see now that the timings are the same.
Maybe it was different in Excel 97 and that might explain the book
statement.

RBS

"Tom Ogilvy" wrote in message
...
using Jim's code:

With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .500 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds
With: Done in .516 Seconds
With: Done in .515 Seconds

Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds

With: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .343 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds

With: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .343 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
With: Done in .359 Seconds

Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds

Except for the first run "with" variables on the end of the Next
statement, there isn't a difference.

If I alternate on each run:
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .375 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .344 Seconds
With: Done in .344 Seconds
Without: Done in .359 Seconds
With: Done in .360 Seconds


Why the first time anomaly - could depend on what else the system is
doing. Code timing in a multitasking environment is difficult

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I get similar figures with your exact code, which is a nuisance as I
have spent more
than an hour adding all the counter variables to a large .xla file!
Not sure now why I didn't see this difference with the previous code.

RBS


"Jim Cone" wrote in message
...
With the comment ('c and 'i) took 0.57 seconds.
Without the comment (c and i) took 0.84 seconds.
Averages of five tries for each.
--
Jim Cone
San Francisco, USA
http://www.realezsites.com/bus/primitivesoftware

Sub test()
Dim lStartTime As Long

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long
lStartTime = timeGetTime

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next 'c
Next 'i

MsgBox "Done in " & Format$((timeGetTime - lStartTime) / 1000,
"###.000") & " Seconds"
End Sub
'-----------------

"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
I have read that it is equal and that it is faster with the counter
variable, but never
that is slower with the counter variable.
I just take it it is the same or the difference is unmeasurable small.

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
From what I've read (I've never tested), Next without the variable is
faster.



RB Smissaert wrote:

Hang on, are you saying now that it is faster without
the variable after the Next?

RBS

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I like to see the variable in the Next statement.

But I have seen Dana DeLouis do this:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next 'i

It's kind of the best of both worlds???

RB Smissaert wrote:

OK, thanks, 1% faster will be worth it for me and as you say it
looks
better.
Couldn't see the speed difference, but I believe you.

RBS

"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
I would have expected it to be true, but not significantly so.

I did a 100 times repetitive loop of your code and found it to
be
approx
1%
faster, which I think sounds about right.

But it is much nicer code IMO irrespective.

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing
direct)

"RB Smissaert" wrote in
message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by
Matthew
Harris
(third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next
would
make
the
loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it
made it
any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As
Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs",
,
strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS





--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I think perhaps you are all testing with nicely structured code. If you
sprinkled a few ifs and gotos around, wandering all over the place, like us
old fashioned real programmers used to do, the the compiler may not be able
to link a particular NEXT with its matching FOR without the variable
specified, and have to generate more complex code.

just a theory


"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris (third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make the loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", , strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

If it can't, then it won't be able to run the code.

If's and goto's still have rules that the compiler has to interpret.

Just another thought.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"David Cox" wrote in message
...
I think perhaps you are all testing with nicely structured code. If you
sprinkled a few ifs and gotos around, wandering all over the place, like us
old fashioned real programmers used to do, the the compiler may not be able
to link a particular NEXT with its matching FOR without the variable
specified, and have to generate more complex code.

just a theory


"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris (third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make the loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", , strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS

For Next loop faster with counter after Next?
 

I had thought about that, but I have tested with a very complex For Next
loop and I still couldn't see the difference.
As Tom says it would be bad news if the compiler would be thrown by that.
Clever bits of software these compilers, especially at the speed they do it.

RBS

"David Cox" wrote in message
...
I think perhaps you are all testing with nicely structured code. If you
sprinkled a few ifs and gotos around, wandering all over the place, like us
old fashioned real programmers used to do, the the compiler may not be able
to link a particular NEXT with its matching FOR without the variable
specified, and have to generate more complex code.

just a theory


"RB Smissaert" wrote in message
...
Read in the book Visual Basic for Applications in 21 days by Matthew
Harris (third edition) that putting the loop counter after the Next would
make the loop faster:

For i = 0 to 10
'code
Next i

I can see it makes the code clearer, but I didn't think it made it any
faster and on simple testing I can see no difference:

Option Explicit
Private lStartTime As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long

Sub StartSW()
lStartTime = timeGetTime()
End Sub

Sub StopSW(Optional ByRef strMessage As Variant = "")
MsgBox "Done in " & timeGetTime() - lStartTime & " msecs", , strMessage
End Sub

Sub test()

Dim i As Long
Dim c As Long
Dim n As Long

StartSW

For i = 0 To 10000
For c = 0 To 1000
n = i + c
Next
Next

StopSW

End Sub


Is there any truth in this?


RBS