[Haskell-cafe] A tale of Project Euler
byorgey at gmail.com
Tue Nov 27 15:53:42 EST 2007
On Nov 27, 2007 2:34 PM, Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hi guys.
> Somebody just introduced me to a thing called "Project Euler". I gather
> it's well known around here...
> Anyway, I was a little bit concerned about problem #7. The problem is
> basically "figure out what the 10,001st prime number is". Consider the
> following two programs for solving this:
> First, somebody else wrote this in C:
> int n = 2 , m , primesFound = 0;
> for( n=0;n < MAX_NUMBERS;n++ )
> if( prime[n] )
> if( primesFound == 10001 )
> cout << n << " is the 10001st prime." << endl;
> Second, my implementation in Haskell:
> primes :: [Integer]
> primes = seive [2..]
> seive (p:xs) = p : seive (filter (\x -> x `mod` p > 0) xs)
> main = print (primes !! 10000)
> Well, we know who's winning the beauty contest. But here's the worrying
> C program: 0.016 seconds
> Haskell program: 41 seconds
> Eeeps! o_O That's Not Good(tm).
> Replacing "primes :: [Integer]" with "primes :: [Word32]" speeds the
> Haskell version up to 18 seconds, which is much faster but still a joke
> compared to C.
> Running the Haskell code on a 2.2 GHz AMD Athlon64 X2 instead of a 1.5
> GHz AMD Athlon drops the execution time down to 3 seconds. (So clearly
> the box I was using in my lunch break at work is *seriously* slow...
> presumably the PC running the C code isn't.)
> So, now I have a Haskell version that's "only" several hundred times
> slower. Neither program is especially optimised, yet the C version is
> drastically faster. This makes me sad. :-(
> By the way... I tried using Data.List.Stream instead. This made the
> program about 40% slower. I also tried both -fasm and -fvia-c. The
> difference was statistically insignificant. (Hey guys, nice work on the
> native codegen!) The difference in compilation speed was fairly drastic
> though, needless to say. (The machine is kinda low on RAM, so trying to
> call GCC makes it thrash like hell. So does linking, actually...)
> Also, I'm stuck with problem #10. (Find the sum of all primes less than
> 1 million.) I've let the program run for well over 15 minutes, and still
> no answer is forthcomming. It's implemented using the same primes
> function as above, with a simple filter and sum. (The type has to be
> changed to [Word64] to avoid overflowing the result though.) The other
> guy claims to have a C solution that takes 12 ms. There's a hell of a
> difference between 12 ms and over half an hour...(!) Clearly something
> is horribly wrong here. Uh... help?
The algorithm you use to compute primes is actually quite inefficient, and
in particular, it is NOT the same algorithm that the C program is using,
despite first appearances! The call to 'filter' in the sieve function works
by checking *every* number for divisibility by p, and only keeping those
that aren't divisible by p; whereas the C program simply marks multiples of
p as non-prime, skipping over those which are not multiples. So the Haskell
version basically searches for primes by doing trial division on every
single integer, whereas the C version is actually using a sieve.
For more information you might want to read this paper, which includes a
much better primes implementation:
In fact, this very same topic was discussed on the list a while back, you
can read it here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe