Is this a good Primality Checking Solution? - performance

Question

I have written this code to check if a number is prime (for numbers upto 10^9+7)
Is this a good method ??
What will be the time complexity for this ??
What I have done is that I have made a unordered_set which stores the prime numbers upto sqrt(n).
When checking if a number is prime or not if first check if its is less than the max number in the table.
If it is less it is searched in the table so the complexity should be O(1) in this case.
If it is more the number is put through a divisibility test with the numbers from the set of number containing the prime numbers.
#include<iostream>
#include<set>
#include<math.h>
#include<unordered_set>
#define sqrt10e9 31623
using namespace std;
unordered_set<long long> primeSet = { 2, 3 }; //used for fast lookups
void genrate_prime_set(long range) //this generates prime number upto sqrt(10^9+7)
{
bool flag;
set<long long> tempPrimeSet = { 2, 3 }; //a temporay set is used for genration
set<long long>::iterator j;
for (int i = 3; i <= range; i = i + 2)
{
//cout << i << " ";
flag = true;
for (j = tempPrimeSet.begin(); *j * *j <= i; ++j)
{
if (i % (*j) == 0)
{
flag = false;
break;
}
}
if (flag)
{
primeSet.insert(i);
tempPrimeSet.insert(i);
}
}
}
bool is_prime(long long i,unordered_set<long long> primeSet)
{
bool flag = true;
if(i <= sqrt10e9) //if number exist in the lookup table
return primeSet.count(i);
//if it doesn't iterate through the table
for (unordered_set<long long>::iterator j = primeSet.begin(); j != primeSet.end(); ++j)
{
if (*j * *j <= i && i % (*j) == 0)
{
flag = false;
break;
}
}
return flag;
}
int main()
{
//long long testCases, a, b, kiwiCount;
bool primeFlag = true;
//unordered_set<int> primeNum;
genrate_prime_set(sqrt10e9);
cout << primeSet.size()<<"\n";
cout << is_prime(9999991,primeSet);
return 0;
}

Answer 1

This doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient way to do the job at hand.
Although it probably won't make a big difference in the end, the efficient way to generate all the primes up to some specific limit is clearly to use a sieve--the sieve of Eratosthenes is simple and fast. There are a couple of modifications that can be faster, but for the small size you're dealing with, they're probably not worthwhile.
These normally produce their output in a more effective format than you're currently using as well. In particular, you typically just dedicate one bit to each possible prime (i.e., each odd number) and end up with it zeroed if the number is composite, and one if it's prime (you can, of course, reverse the sense if you prefer).
Since you only need one bit for each odd number from 3 to 31623, this requires only about 16 K bits, or about 2K bytes--a truly minuscule amount of memory by modern standards (especially: little enough to fit in L1 cache quite easily).
Since the bits are stored in order, it's also trivial to compute and test by the factors up to the square root of the number you're testing instead of testing against all the numbers in the table (including those greater than the square root of the number you're testing, which is obviously a waste of time). This also optimizes access to the memory in case some of it's not in the cache (i.e., you can access all the data in order, making life as easy as possible for the hardware prefetcher).
If you wanted to optimize further, I'd consider just using the sieve to find all primes up to 109+7, and look up inputs. Whether this is a win will depend (heavily) upon the number of queries you can expect to receive. A quick check shows that a simple implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes can find all primes up to 109 in about 17 seconds. After that, each query is (of course) essentially instantaneous (i.e., the cost of a single memory read). This does require around 120 megabytes of memory for the result of the sieve, which would once have been a major consideration, but (except on fairly limited systems) normally wouldn't be any more.

Answer 2

The very short answer: do research on the subject, starting with the term "Miller-Rabin"
The short answer is no:
Looking for factors of a number is a poor way to check for primality
Exhaustively searching through primes is a poor way to look for factors
Especially if you search through every prime, rather than just the ones less than or equal to the square root of the number
Doing a primality test on each number of them is a poor way to generate a list of primes
Also, you should take in primeSet by reference rather than copy, if it really needs to be a parameter.
Note: testing small primes to see if they divide a number is a useful first step of a primality test, but should generally only be used for the smallest primes before switching to a better method

Answer 3

No, it's not a very good way to determine if a number is prime. Here is pseudocode for a simple primality test that is sufficient for numbers in your range; I'll leave it to you to translate to C++:
function isPrime(n)
d := 2
while d * d <= n
if n % d == 0
return False
d := d + 1
return True
This works by trying every potential divisor up to the square root of the input number n; if no divisor has been found, then the input number could not be composite, meaning of the form n = p × q, because one of the two divisors p or q must be less than the square root of n while the other is greater than the square root of n.
There are better ways to determine primality; for instance, after initially checking if the number is even (and hence prime only if n = 2), it is only necessary to test odd potential divisors, halving the amount of work necessary. If you have a list of primes up to the square root of n, you can use that list as trial divisors and make the process even faster. And there are other techniques for larger n.
But that should be enough to get you started. When you are ready for more, come back here and ask more questions.

Answer 4

I can only suggest a way to use a library function in Java to check the primality of a number. As for the other questions, I do not have any answers.
The java.math.BigInteger.isProbablePrime(int certainty) returns true if this BigInteger is probably prime, false if it's definitely composite. If certainty is ≤ 0, true is returned. You should try and use it in your code. So try rewriting it in Java
Parameters
certainty - a measure of the uncertainty that the caller is willing to tolerate: if the call returns true the probability that this BigInteger is prime exceeds (1 - 1/2^certainty). The execution time of this method is proportional to the value of this parameter.
Return Value
This method returns true if this BigInteger is probably prime, false if it's definitely composite.
Example
The following example shows the usage of math.BigInteger.isProbablePrime() method
import java.math.*;
public class BigIntegerDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// create 3 BigInteger objects
BigInteger bi1, bi2, bi3;
// create 3 Boolean objects
Boolean b1, b2, b3;
// assign values to bi1, bi2
bi1 = new BigInteger("7");
bi2 = new BigInteger("9");
// perform isProbablePrime on bi1, bi2
b1 = bi1.isProbablePrime(1);
b2 = bi2.isProbablePrime(1);
b3 = bi2.isProbablePrime(-1);
String str1 = bi1+ " is prime with certainity 1 is " +b1;
String str2 = bi2+ " is prime with certainity 1 is " +b2;
String str3 = bi2+ " is prime with certainity -1 is " +b3;
// print b1, b2, b3 values
System.out.println( str1 );
System.out.println( str2 );
System.out.println( str3 );
}
}
Output
7 is prime with certainity 1 is true
9 is prime with certainity 1 is false
9 is prime with certainity -1 is true