[Haskell-cafe] Another optimization question
anton muhin
antonmuhin at gmail.com
Sat May 17 16:48:30 EDT 2008
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Daniel Fischer
<daniel.is.fischer at web.de> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 17. Mai 2008 19:52 schrieb anton muhin:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Jeroen <yrn001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, I know there's been quite some performance/optimization post lately,
>> > so I hope there still room for one more. While solving a ProjectEuler
>> > problem (27), I saw a performance issue I cannot explain. I narrowed it
>> > down to the following code (never mind that 'primes' is just [1..],
>> > the problem is the same or worse with real primes):
>> >
>> > primes :: [Int]
>> > primes = [1..]
>> >
>> > isPrime :: Int -> Bool
>> > isPrime x = isPrime' x primes
>> > where isPrime' x (p:ps) | x == p = True
>> >
>> > | x > p = isPrime' x ps
>> > | otherwise = False
>> >
>> > main = print $ length (filter (== True) (map isPrime [1..5000]))
>> >
>> > $ time ./experiment1
>> > 5000
>> >
>> > real 0m4.037s
>> > user 0m3.378s
>> > sys 0m0.060s
>> >
>> >
>> > All good, but if I change isPrime to the simpeler
>> >
>> > isPrime x = elem x (takeWhile (<= x) primes)
>> >
>> > it takes twice as long:
>> >
>> > time ./experiment2
>> > 5000
>> >
>> > real 0m7.837s
>> > user 0m6.532s
>> > sys 0m0.141s
>> >
>> > With real primes, it even takes 10 times as long.
>> > I tried looking at the output of ghc -ddump-simpl,
>> > as suggested in a previous post, but it's a bit over
>> > my head (newby here...).
>> >
>> > Any suggestions?
>>
>> Just a thought: in your first approach you compare any element of the
>> list once. In second---twice: once to check if <= x and second time
>> to check if it is equal to x. That's a hypothesis,
>
> I thought so, too, but I couldn't reproduce the behaviour, so I'm not sure
> what happens. In fact, compiling without optimisations, the first version
> takes almost twice as long as the second. Compiled with -O2, the second takes
> about 13% more time.
Why not -O3?
> Using a real list of primes,
What's the size of the real list?
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> ghc --make experiment -o expleriment3
> [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( experiment.hs, experiment.o )
> Linking experiment3 ...
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> time ./experiment3
> 669
>
> real 0m0.222s
> user 0m0.220s
> sys 0m0.000s
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> ghc --make experiment -o experiment4
> [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( experiment.hs, experiment.o )
> Linking experiment4 ...
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> time ./experiment4
> 669
>
> real 0m0.299s
> user 0m0.290s
> sys 0m0.000s
>
> But
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> ghc -O2 --make experiment -o experiment3
> [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( experiment.hs, experiment.o )
> Linking experiment3 ...
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> ghc -O2 --make experiment -o experiment4
> [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( experiment.hs, experiment.o )
> Linking experiment4 ...
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> time ./experiment3
> 669
>
> real 0m0.053s
> user 0m0.040s
> sys 0m0.010s
> dafis at linux:~/EulerProblems/Testing> time ./experiment4
> 669
>
> real 0m0.257s
> user 0m0.250s
> sys 0m0.010s
>
> Wow!
> I've no idea what optimising did to the first version, but apparently it
> couldn't do much for the second.
>
>> but another
>> implementation of isPrime:
>>
>> isPrime x = (== x) $ head $ dropWhile (< x) primes
>
> With -O2, this is about 20% slower than the Jeroen's first version, without
> optimisations 50% faster.
> Strange.
Well, head has its overhead as well. Cf. two variants:
firstNotLess :: Int -> [Int] -> Int
firstNotLess s (x:xs) = if x < s then firstNotLess s xs else x
dropLess :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
dropLess s l@(x:xs) = if x < s then dropLess s xs else l
isPrime :: Int -> Bool
isPrime x = x == (firstNotLess x primes)
isPrime' :: Int -> Bool
isPrime' x = x == (head $ dropLess x primes)
On my box firstNotLess gives numbers pretty close (if not better) than
Jeroen's first variant, while head $ dropLess notably worse.
> isPrime :: Int -> Bool
> isPrime x = go primes
> where
> go (p:ps) = case compare x p of
> LT -> False
> EQ -> True
> GT -> go ps
>
> does best (on my box), with and without optimisations (very very slightly with
> -O2) for a list of real primes, but not for [1 .. ].
And what happens for [1..]?
> However, more than can be squished out of fiddling with these versions could
> be gained from a better algorithm.
Definitely.
yours,
anton.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list