patternMinor
VBA code for testing efficency
Viewed 0 times
efficencytestingforvbacode
Problem
I am currently trying out code for timing efficiency (how fast it runs, basically).
The general consensus is that code with
The two codes I have made do the same thing, which is to enter a number 40000+1 every consecutive cell (so Cell A1 is 40000 then A2 is 40001 and so forth) and then converts those numbers into dates. One does this with
The code
The code without
The milliseconds is in "Milliseconds" as the
The code that the efficency tests is the
Code with
```
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32.dll" () As Long
Sub UsingVaribles()
Dim NumberToday As Long
Dim StartTimer As Long
Dim rngCells As Range
Dim rng As Range
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
[A1].Select
NumberToday = 40000
StartTimer = GetTickCount
k = 1
For q = 1 To 26
For i = 1 To 1000
NumberToday = NumberToday + 1
Set r
The general consensus is that code with
ActiveCell,.Select,Selection and so forth are basicly rejected for being slow and buggy, whereas code that uses variables and not ActiveCell,.Select,Selection are considered quicker and less buggyThe two codes I have made do the same thing, which is to enter a number 40000+1 every consecutive cell (so Cell A1 is 40000 then A2 is 40001 and so forth) and then converts those numbers into dates. One does this with
ActiveCell, Selection and Select, while the other does it with varibles,Long and Range. I also did both with and then without Application.ScreenUpdating = False to see how that worked as well.The code
ActiveCell etc. ran at 13494,26567,26489,14040,26598(without Application.ScreenUpdating = False) and 1154,1123,1123,1107,1170 (with Application.ScreenUpdating = False) "Milliseconds"The code without
ActiveCell ran at 905,905,905,671,687 (without Application.ScreenUpdating = False) and ran at 577,609,577,577,562 (with Application.ScreenUpdating = False) "Milliseconds"The milliseconds is in "Milliseconds" as the
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32.dll" () As Long I have been lead to believe isnt very accurate, I use it because the accurate ones are addins for excel and I unable to download or install anything on this PC, but gvies a decent idea of the speed the code runs atThe code that the efficency tests is the
For i = 1 To 1000 loopCode with
ActiveCells:```
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32.dll" () As Long
Sub UsingVaribles()
Dim NumberToday As Long
Dim StartTimer As Long
Dim rngCells As Range
Dim rng As Range
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
[A1].Select
NumberToday = 40000
StartTimer = GetTickCount
k = 1
For q = 1 To 26
For i = 1 To 1000
NumberToday = NumberToday + 1
Set r
Solution
I know this isn't what you're asking, but what's up with your variables? You should always turn on
When you don't define your variable, VBA defines it as a variant. I'm pretty sure variants are objects:
Performance. A variable you declare with the Object type is flexible
enough to contain a reference to any object. However, when you invoke
a method or property on such a variable, you always incur late binding
(at run time). To force early binding (at compile time) and better
performance, declare the variable with a specific class name, or cast
it to the specific data type.
So you pay a penalty when you don't dimension your variables.
I imagine defining your variables might shave some milliseconds off over the long run.
For variables I'm getting 570ish
For selection I'm getting 950ish
For
For
And now, my version (why are you
Option Explicit which will catch things like k, q and i not being dimensioned.When you don't define your variable, VBA defines it as a variant. I'm pretty sure variants are objects:
Performance. A variable you declare with the Object type is flexible
enough to contain a reference to any object. However, when you invoke
a method or property on such a variable, you always incur late binding
(at run time). To force early binding (at compile time) and better
performance, declare the variable with a specific class name, or cast
it to the specific data type.
So you pay a penalty when you don't dimension your variables.
I imagine defining your variables might shave some milliseconds off over the long run.
For variables I'm getting 570ish
For selection I'm getting 950ish
For
i=1 to 10000 - using your variables is giving me about 5200
- while using option explicit I'm getting around 5100.
For
i=1 to 50000- option explicit is 24165
- your variables is 24476
Option Explicit has the gainz.And now, my version (why are you
[A1].Selecting?) for i=1 to 50000 comes in at 23182. That right there should show you the .select statement was slowing it down.Option Explicit
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32.dll" () As Long
Sub UsingVaribles()
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Dim NumberToday As Long
NumberToday = 40000
Dim StartTimer As Long
StartTimer = GetTickCount
Dim rngCells As Range
Dim rng As Range
Dim k As Long
k = 1
Dim i As Long
Dim q As Long
For q = 1 To 26
For i = 1 To 50000
NumberToday = NumberToday + 1
Set rngCells = Cells(i, k)
rngCells = NumberToday
Next i
Range(rngCells, Cells(1, k)).NumberFormat = "m/d/yyyy" ' 1 bug out
k = k + 1
Next q
MsgBox (GetTickCount - StartTimer & " Milliseconds")
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End SubCode Snippets
Option Explicit
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32.dll" () As Long
Sub UsingVaribles()
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Dim NumberToday As Long
NumberToday = 40000
Dim StartTimer As Long
StartTimer = GetTickCount
Dim rngCells As Range
Dim rng As Range
Dim k As Long
k = 1
Dim i As Long
Dim q As Long
For q = 1 To 26
For i = 1 To 50000
NumberToday = NumberToday + 1
Set rngCells = Cells(i, k)
rngCells = NumberToday
Next i
Range(rngCells, Cells(1, k)).NumberFormat = "m/d/yyyy" ' 1 bug out
k = k + 1
Next q
MsgBox (GetTickCount - StartTimer & " Milliseconds")
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End SubContext
StackExchange Code Review Q#118259, answer score: 3
Revisions (0)
No revisions yet.