[Top] [All Lists]

[Haskell-cafe] Re: FASTER primes

Subject: [Haskell-cafe] Re: FASTER primes
From: Heinrich Apfelmus
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:29:19 +0100
Will Ness wrote:
> I keep thinking that storage duplication with span, filter etc. is not really 
> necessary, and can be replaced with some pointer chasing - especially when 
> there's only one consumer present for the generated values. 
> What I mean is thinking of lists in terms of produce/consumer paradigm, as 
> objects supporting the { pull, peek } interface, keeping the generator inside 
> that would produce the next value on 'pull' request and keep it ready for 
> any 'peek's.
> Euler's sieve is
>  sieve (p:ps) xs = h ++ sieve ps (t `minus` map (p*) [p,p+2..])
>                       where (h,t) = span (< p*p) xs
> [...]
> The real difference here is between those producers whose values will only be 
> consumed once, by one specific consumer, and those which values may be needed 
> more than once, so need really to be maintained in some storage. If not - 
> span, 
> filter, map, whatever - they all are just little modifiers on top of the real 
> producers, which may or may not also have an actual storage maintained by 
> them.

(I haven't followed the whole thread, but hopefully I have enough grasp
of it to make a useful remark. :))

Concerning lists as producer/consumer, I think that's exactly what lazy
evaluation is doing. Neither  filter ,  map  or  span  evaluate and
store more list elements that strictly necessary.

Sure, creating a list head only to immediately consume it is somewhat
inefficient -- and the target of stream fusion[1] -- but this is an
overhead of how list elements are stored, not how many.

You can try to implement the Euler sieve with producers by using a type like

   data Producer a = forall s. Producer {
                      state :: !s, next :: s -> s, value :: s -> a }

but I think this will be quite difficult; it's not clear what and thus
how big the state will be. (See [1] for choosing a good type.)

Concerning the sieves, there is a fundamental difference between the
imperative sieve and the functional sieves, regardless of whether the
latter start at p or p^2 or use a priority queue. Namely, the imperative
sieve makes essential use of *pointer arithmetic*. The key point is that
in order to cross off the multiples

    p, 2*p, 3*p, ...

of a prime, the algorithm can directly jump from the (k*p)-th to the
(k*p+p)-th array element by adding  p  to the index. The functional
versions can never beat that because they can't just jump over  p
constructors of a data structure in O(1) time.

[1]: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/papers/CLS07.html

Heinrich Apfelmus


Haskell-Cafe mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>