Gee, seems my mail server reads your posts very thoroughly today :)
Am Dienstag 29 Dezember 2009 14:58:10 schrieb Will Ness:
> Eugene Kirpichov <ekirpichov <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > 2009/12/29 Will Ness <will_n48 <at> yahoo.com>:
> > > Daniel Fischer <daniel.is.fischer <at> web.de> writes:
> > >> Am Dienstag 29 Dezember 2009 04:38:21 schrieb Will Ness:
> > >> > Now _this_, when tested as interpreted code in GHCi, runs about 2.5x
> > >> > times faster than Priority Queue based code from Melissa O'Neill's
> > >> > ZIP package mentioned at the haskellwiki/Prime_Numbers page, with
> > >> > about half used memory reported, in producing 10,000 to 300,000
> > >> > primes.
> > >> >
> > >> > It is faster than BayerPrimes.hs from the ZIP package too, in the
> > >> > tested range, at about 35 lines of code in total.
> > >>
> > >> That's nice. However, the important criterion is how compiled code
> > >> (-O2)
> > >
> > > fares. Do the relations continue to hold? How does it compare to a
> > > bitsieve?
> > >
> > >
> > > Haven't gotten to that part yet. :)
> > >
> > > But why is it more important? Would that not tell us more about the
> > > compiler performance than the code itself?
> > If you mean "algorithmic complexity", you shouldn't care about a
> > difference of 2.5x.
> It's not just at one point; the asymptotics are _the_same_ across the range
> that I've tested (admittedly, somewhat narrow). I measure local behavior
> simply as logBase in base of ratio of problem sizes, of the ratio of run
> > If you mean "actual performance for a particular task", you should
> > measure the performance in realistic conditions. Namely, if you're
> > implementing a program that needs efficient generation of primes,
> > won't you compile it with -O2?
> If I realistically needed primes generated in a real life setting, I'd
> probably had to use some C for that.
If you need the utmost speed, then probably yes. If you can do with a little less, my STUArray bitsieves take about 35% longer than the equivalent C code and are roughly eight times faster than ONeillPrimes. I can usually live well with that.
> If OTOH we're talking about a tutorial
> code that is to be as efficient as possible without loosing it clarity,
> being a reflection of essentials of the problem, then any overly
> complicated advanced Haskell wouldn't be my choice either.
Though perhaps we view mutable array code differently. In my view, it's neither advanced nor complicated.
> And seeing that
> this overly-complicated (IMO), steps-jumping PQ-based code was sold to us
> as the only "faithful" rendering of the sieve, I wanted to see for myself
> whether this really holds water.
I can understand that very well.