I have two programs to find prime numbers (just an exercise, I'm learning Haskell). "primes" is about 10X faster than "primes2", once compiled with ghc (with flag -O). However, in "primes2", I thought it would consider only prime numbers for the divisor test, which should be faster than considering odd numbers in "isPrime", right? What am I missing?
isqrt :: Integral a => a -> a
isqrt = floor . sqrt . fromIntegral
isPrime :: Integral a => a -> Bool
isPrime n = length [i | i <- [1,3..(isqrt n)], mod n i == 0] == 1
primes :: Integral a => a -> [a]
primes n = [2,3,5,7,11,13] ++ (filter (isPrime) [15,17..n])
primes2 :: Integral a => a -> [a]
primes2 n = 2 : [i | i <- [3,5..n], all ((/= 0) . mod i) (primes2 (isqrt i))]
I think what's happening here is that isPrime is a simple loop, whereas primes2 is calling itself recursively — and its recursion pattern looks exponential to me.
Searching through my old source code, I found this code:
primes :: [Integer]
primes = 2 : filter isPrime [3,5..]
isPrime :: Integer -> Bool
isPrime x = all (\n -> x `mod` n /= 0) $
takeWhile (\n -> n * n <= x) primes
This tests each possible prime x only against the primes below sqrt(x), using the already generated list of primes. So it probably doesn't test any given prime more than once.
Memoization in Haskell:
Memoization in Haskell is generally explicit, not implicit. The compiler won't "do the right thing" but it will only do what you tell it to. When you call primes2,
*Main> primes2 5
[2,3,5]
*Main> primes2 10
[2,3,5,7]
Each time you call the function it calculates all of its results all over again. It has to. Why? Because 1) You didn't make it save its results, and 2) the answer is different each time you call it.
In the sample code I gave above, primes is a constant (i.e. it has arity zero) so there's only one copy of it in memory, and its parts only get evaluated once.
If you want memoization, you need to have a value with arity zero somewhere in your code.
I like what Dietrich has done with the memoization, but I think theres a data structure issue here too. Lists are just not the ideal data structure for this. They are, by necessity, lisp style cons cells with no random access. Set seems better suited to me.
import qualified Data.Set as S
sieve :: (Integral a) => a -> S.Set a
sieve top = let l = S.fromList (2:3:([5,11..top]++[7,13..top]))
iter s c
| cur > (div (S.findMax s) 2) = s
| otherwise = iter (s S.\\ (S.fromList [2*cur,3*cur..top])) (S.deleteMin c)
where cur = S.findMin c
in iter l (l S.\\ (S.fromList [2,3]))
I know its kind of ugly, and not too declarative, but it runs rather quickly. Im looking into a way to make this nicer looking using Set.fold and Set.union over the composites. Any other ideas for neatening this up would be appreciated.
PS - see how (2:3:([5,11..top]++[7,13..top])) avoids unnecessary multiples of 3 such as the 15 in your primes. Unfortunately, this ruins your ordering if you work with lists and you sign up for a sorting, but for sets thats not an issue.
Related
I have been trying to solve the following problem in haskell:
Generate a list of tuples (n, s) where 0 ≤ n ≤ 100 and n mod 2 = 0,
and where s = sum(1..n) The output should be the list
[(0,0),(2,3),(4,10),...,(100,5050)] Source
I tried to solve the problem with following code:
genListTupleSumUntilX :: Int -> [(Int,Int)]
genListTupleSumUntilX x =
take x [(n, s) | n <- [1..x], s <- sumUntilN x]
where
sumUntilN :: Int -> [Int]
sumUntilN n
| n == 0 = []
| n == 1 = [1]
| otherwise = sumUntilN (n-1) ++ [sum[1..n]]
However, this code does not give the expected result. (as #Guru Stron Pointed out- Thank you!)
I would also appreciate it if somebody could help me make this code more concise. I am also new to the concept of lazy evaluation, so am unable to determine the runtime complexity. Help will be appreciated.
However I feel like this code could still be improved upon, espically with:
take x in the function seems really inelegant. So Is there a way to have list comprhensions only map to the same index?
sumUntilN feels really verbose. Is there an idiomatic way to do the same in haskell?
Finally, I am extremely new to haskell and have trouble evaluating the time and space complexity of the function. Can somebody help me there?
sumOfNumsUptoN n = n * (n + 1) `div` 2
genListTupleSumUntilX :: Int -> [(Int, Int)]
genListTupleSumUntilX n = zip [0, 2 .. n] $ map sumOfNumsUptoN [0, 2 .. n]
This is of linear complexity on the size of the list.
I would say that you overcomplicate things. To produce correct output you can use simple list comprehension:
genListTupleSumUntilX :: Int -> [(Int,Int)]
genListTupleSumUntilX x = [(n, sum [1..n]) | n <- [0,2..x]]
Note that this solution will recalculate the same sums repeatedly (i.e for n+1 element sum is actually n + 2 + n + 1 + sumForNthElemnt, so you can potentially reuse the computation) which will lead to O(n^2) complexity, but for such relatively small n it is not a big issue. You can handle this using scanl function (though maybe there is more idiomatic approach for memoization):
genListTupleSumUntilX :: Int -> [(Int,Int)]
genListTupleSumUntilX 0 = []
genListTupleSumUntilX x = scanl (\ (prev, prevSum) curr -> (curr, prevSum + prev + 1 + curr)) (0,0) [2,4..x]
I've been playing with Haskell a fair amount lately, and I came up with this function to find the nth prime:
nthPrime 1 = 2
nthPrime 2 = 3
nthPrime n = aux [2, 3] 3 5 n
where
aux knownPrimes currentNth suspect soughtNth =
let currentIsPrime = foldl (\l n -> l && suspect `mod` n /= 0)
True knownPrimes
in case (currentIsPrime, soughtNth == currentNth) of
(True, True) -> suspect
(True, False) -> aux (suspect:knownPrimes) (currentNth + 1)
(suspect + 2) soughtNth
_ -> aux knownPrimes currentNth (suspect + 2) soughtNth
My question is, is there a way to have an accumulative parameter (in this case knownPrimes) that is not reversed (as occurs when passing (suspect:knownPrimes))?
I have tried using knownPrimes ++ [suspect] but this seems inefficient as well.
My hope is that if I can pass the known primes in order then I can shortcut some of the primality checks further.
In Haskell, if you are using an accumulator to build a list, but end up having to reverse it, it is often the case that it is better to drop the accumulator and instead produce the list lazily as the result of your computation.
If you apply this kind of thinking to searching for primes, and take full advantage of laziness, you end up with a well-known technique of producing an infinite list of all the primes. If we refactor your code as little as possible to use this technique, we get something like:
allPrimes = [2, 3] ++ aux 5
where
aux suspect =
let currentIsPrime = foldl (\l n -> l && suspect `mod` n /= 0) True
$ takeWhile (\n -> n*n <= suspect) allPrimes
in case currentIsPrime of
True -> suspect : aux (suspect + 2)
False -> aux (suspect + 2)
nthPrime n = allPrimes !! (n-1)
I have removed now unnecessary parameters and changed the code from accumulating into lazily producing, and to use its own result as the source of prime divisors to test (this is called "tying the knot"). Other than that, the only change here is to add a takeWhile check: since the list we are testing divisors from is defined in terms of itself, and is infinite to boot, we need to know where on the list to stop checking for divisors so that we don't get a truly infinite recursion.
Apart from this, there is an inefficiency in this code:
foldl (\l n -> l && suspect `mod` n /= 0) True
is not a good way for checking whether there are no divisors in a list, because as written, it won't stop once a divisor has been found, even though && itself is shortcutting (stopping as soon as its first argument is found to be False).
To allow proper shortcutting, a foldr could be used instead:
foldr (\n r -> suspect `mod` n /= 0 && r) True
Or, even better, use the predefined function all:
all (\n -> suspect `mod` n /= 0)
Using my remarks
This is how it would look like if you use all and refactor it a bit:
allPrimes :: [Integer]
allPrimes = 2 : 3 : aux 5
where
aux suspect
| currentIsPrime = suspect : nextPrimes
| otherwise = nextPrimes
where
currentIsPrime =
all (\n -> suspect `mod` n /= 0)
$ takeWhile (\n -> n*n <= suspect) allPrimes
nextPrimes = aux (suspect + 2)
nthPrime :: Int -> Integer
nthPrime n = allPrimes !! (n-1)
Please note I am almost a complete newbie in OCaml. In order to learn a bit, and test its performance, I tried to implement a module that approximates Pi using the Leibniz series.
My first attempt led to a stack overflow (the actual error, not this site). Knowing from Haskell that this may come from too many "thunks", or promises to compute something, while recursing over the addends, I looked for some way of keeping just the last result while summing with the next. I found the following tail-recursive implementations of sum and map in the notes of an OCaml course, here and here, and expected the compiler to produce an efficient result.
However, the resulting executable, compiled with ocamlopt, is much slower than a C++ version compiled with clang++. Is this code as efficient as possible? Is there some optimization flag I am missing?
My complete code is:
let (--) i j =
let rec aux n acc =
if n < i then acc else aux (n-1) (n :: acc)
in aux j [];;
let sum_list_tr l =
let rec helper a l = match l with
| [] -> a
| h :: t -> helper (a +. h) t
in helper 0. l
let rec tailmap f l a = match l with
| [] -> a
| h :: t -> tailmap f t (f h :: a);;
let rev l =
let rec helper l a = match l with
| [] -> a
| h :: t -> helper t (h :: a)
in helper l [];;
let efficient_map f l = rev (tailmap f l []);;
let summand n =
let m = float_of_int n
in (-1.) ** m /. (2. *. m +. 1.);;
let pi_approx n =
4. *. sum_list_tr (efficient_map summand (0 -- n));;
let n = int_of_string Sys.argv.(1);;
Printf.printf "%F\n" (pi_approx n);;
Just for reference, here are the measured times on my machine:
❯❯❯ time ocaml/main 10000000
3.14159275359
ocaml/main 10000000 3,33s user 0,30s system 99% cpu 3,625 total
❯❯❯ time cpp/main 10000000
3.14159
cpp/main 10000000 0,17s user 0,00s system 99% cpu 0,174 total
For completeness, let me state that the first helper function, an equivalent to Python's range, comes from this SO thread, and that this is run using OCaml version 4.01.0, installed via MacPorts on a Darwin 13.1.0.
As I noted in a comment, OCaml's float are boxed, which puts OCaml to a disadvantage compared to Clang.
However, I may be noticing another typical rough edge trying OCaml after Haskell:
if I see what your program is doing, you are creating a list of stuff, to then map a function on that list and finally fold it into a result.
In Haskell, you could more or less expect such a program to be automatically “deforested” at compile-time, so that the resulting generated code was an efficient implementation of the task at hand.
In OCaml, the fact that functions can have side-effects, and in particular functions passed to high-order functions such as map and fold, means that it would be much harder for the compiler to deforest automatically. The programmer has to do it by hand.
In other words: stop building huge short-lived data structures such as 0 -- n and (efficient_map summand (0 -- n)). When your program decides to tackle a new summand, make it do all it wants to do with that summand in a single pass. You can see this as an exercise in applying the principles in Wadler's article (again, by hand, because for various reasons the compiler will not do it for you despite your program being pure).
Here are some results:
$ ocamlopt v2.ml
$ time ./a.out 1000000
3.14159165359
real 0m0.020s
user 0m0.013s
sys 0m0.003s
$ ocamlopt v1.ml
$ time ./a.out 1000000
3.14159365359
real 0m0.238s
user 0m0.204s
sys 0m0.029s
v1.ml is your version. v2.ml is what you might consider an idiomatic OCaml version:
let rec q_pi_approx p n acc =
if n = p
then acc
else q_pi_approx (succ p) n (acc +. (summand p))
let n = int_of_string Sys.argv.(1);;
Printf.printf "%F\n" (4. *. (q_pi_approx 0 n 0.));;
(reusing summand from your code)
It might be more accurate to sum from the last terms to the first, instead of from the first to the last. This is orthogonal to your question, but you may consider it as an exercise in modifying a function that has been forcefully made tail-recursive. Besides, the (-1.) ** m expression in summand is mapped by the compiler to a call to the pow() function on the host, and that's a bag of hurt you may want to avoid.
I've also tried several variants, here are my conclusions:
Using arrays
Using recursion
Using imperative loop
Recursive function is about 30% more effective than array implementation. Imperative loop is approximately as much effective as a recursion (maybe even little slower).
Here're my implementations:
Array:
open Core.Std
let pi_approx n =
let f m = (-1.) ** m /. (2. *. m +. 1.) in
let qpi = Array.init n ~f:Float.of_int |>
Array.map ~f |>
Array.reduce_exn ~f:(+.) in
qpi *. 4.0
Recursion:
let pi_approx n =
let rec loop n acc m =
if m = n
then acc *. 4.0
else
let acc = acc +. (-1.) ** m /. (2. *. m +. 1.) in
loop n acc (m +. 1.0) in
let n = float_of_int n in
loop n 0.0 0.0
This can be further optimized, by moving local function loop outside, so that compiler can inline it.
Imperative loop:
let pi_approx n =
let sum = ref 0. in
for m = 0 to n -1 do
let m = float_of_int m in
sum := !sum +. (-1.) ** m /. (2. *. m +. 1.)
done;
4.0 *. !sum
But, in the code above creating a ref to the sum will incur boxing/unboxing on each step, that we can further optimize this code by using float_ref trick:
type float_ref = { mutable value : float}
let pi_approx n =
let sum = {value = 0.} in
for m = 0 to n - 1 do
let m = float_of_int m in
sum.value <- sum.value +. (-1.) ** m /. (2. *. m +. 1.)
done;
4.0 *. sum.value
Scoreboard
for-loop (with float_ref) : 1.0
non-local recursion : 0.89
local recursion : 0.86
Pascal's version : 0.77
for-loop (with float ref) : 0.62
array : 0.47
original : 0.08
Update
I've updated the answer, as I've found a way to give 40% speedup (or 33% in comparison with #Pascal's answer.
I would like to add that although floats are boxed in OCaml, float arrays are unboxed. Here is a program that builds a float array corresponding to the Leibnitz sequence and uses it to approximate π:
open Array
let q_pi_approx n =
let summand n =
let m = float_of_int n
in (-1.) ** m /. (2. *. m +. 1.) in
let a = Array.init n summand in
Array.fold_left (+.) 0. a
let n = int_of_string Sys.argv.(1);;
Printf.printf "%F\n" (4. *. (q_pi_approx n));;
Obviously, it is still slower than a code that doesn't build any data structure at all. Execution times (the version with array is the last one):
time ./v1 10000000
3.14159275359
real 0m2.479s
user 0m2.380s
sys 0m0.104s
time ./v2 10000000
3.14159255359
real 0m0.402s
user 0m0.400s
sys 0m0.000s
time ./a 10000000
3.14159255359
real 0m0.453s
user 0m0.432s
sys 0m0.020s
I've been playing around with dynamic programming in Haskell. Practically every tutorial I've seen on the subject gives the same, very elegant algorithm based on memoization and the laziness of the Array type. Inspired by those examples, I wrote the following algorithm as a test:
-- pascal n returns the nth entry on the main diagonal of pascal's triangle
-- (mod a million for efficiency)
pascal :: Int -> Int
pascal n = p ! (n,n) where
p = listArray ((0,0),(n,n)) [f (i,j) | i <- [0 .. n], j <- [0 .. n]]
f :: (Int,Int) -> Int
f (_,0) = 1
f (0,_) = 1
f (i,j) = (p ! (i, j-1) + p ! (i-1, j)) `mod` 1000000
My only problem is efficiency. Even using GHC's -O2, this program takes 1.6 seconds to compute pascal 1000, which is about 160 times slower than an equivalent unoptimized C++ program. And the gap only widens with larger inputs.
It seems like I've tried every possible permutation of the above code, along with suggested alternatives like the data-memocombinators library, and they all had the same or worse performance. The one thing I haven't tried is the ST Monad, which I'm sure could be made to run the program only slighter slower than the C version. But I'd really like to write it in idiomatic Haskell, and I don't understand why the idiomatic version is so inefficient. I have two questions:
Why is the above code so inefficient? It seems like a straightforward iteration through a matrix, with an arithmetic operation at each entry. Clearly Haskell is doing something behind the scenes I don't understand.
Is there a way to make it much more efficient (at most 10-15 times the runtime of a C program) without sacrificing its stateless, recursive formulation (vis-a-vis an implementation using mutable arrays in the ST Monad)?
Thanks a lot.
Edit: The array module used is the standard Data.Array
Well, the algorithm could be designed a little better. Using the vector package and being smart about only keeping one row in memory at a time, we can get something that's idiomatic in a different way:
{-# LANGUAGE BangPatterns #-}
import Data.Vector.Unboxed
import Prelude hiding (replicate, tail, scanl)
pascal :: Int -> Int
pascal !n = go 1 ((replicate (n+1) 1) :: Vector Int) where
go !i !prevRow
| i <= n = go (i+1) (scanl f 1 (tail prevRow))
| otherwise = prevRow ! n
f x y = (x + y) `rem` 1000000
This optimizes down very tightly, especially because the vector package includes some rather ingenious tricks to transparently optimize array operations written in an idiomatic style.
1 Why is the above code so inefficient? It seems like a straightforward iteration through a matrix, with an arithmetic operation at each entry. Clearly Haskell is doing something behind the scenes I don't understand.
The problem is that the code writes thunks to the array. Then when entry (n,n) is read, the evaluation of the thunks jumps all over the array again, recurring until finally a value not needing further recursion is found. That causes a lot of unnecessary allocation and inefficiency.
The C++ code doesn't have that problem, the values are written, and read directly without requiring further evaluation. As it would happen with an STUArray. Does
p = runSTUArray $ do
arr <- newArray ((0,0),(n,n)) 1
forM_ [1 .. n] $ \i ->
forM_ [1 .. n] $ \j -> do
a <- readArray arr (i,j-1)
b <- readArray arr (i-1,j)
writeArray arr (i,j) $! (a+b) `rem` 1000000
return arr
really look so bad?
2 Is there a way to make it much more efficient (at most 10-15 times the runtime of a C program) without sacrificing its stateless, recursive formulation (vis-a-vis an implementation using mutable arrays in the ST Monad)?
I don't know of one. But there might be.
Addendum:
Once one uses STUArrays or unboxed Vectors, there's still a significant difference to the equivalent C implementation. The reason is that gcc replaces the % by a combination of multiplications, shifts and subtractions (even without optimisations), since the modulus is known. Doing the same by hand in Haskell (since GHC doesn't [yet] do that),
-- fast modulo 1000000
-- for nonnegative Ints < 2^31
-- requires 64-bit Ints
fastMod :: Int -> Int
fastMod n = n - 1000000*((n*1125899907) `shiftR` 50)
gets the Haskell versions on par with C.
The trick is to think about how to write the whole damn algorithm at once, and then use unboxed vectors as your backing data type. For example, the following runs about 20 times faster on my machine than your code:
import qualified Data.Vector.Unboxed as V
combine :: Int -> Int -> Int
combine x y = (x+y) `mod` 1000000
pascal n = V.last $ go n where
go 0 = V.replicate (n+1) 1
go m = V.scanl1 combine (go (m-1))
I then wrote two main functions that called out to yours and mine with an argument of 4000; these ran in 10.42s and 0.54s respectively. Of course, as I'm sure you know, they both get blown out of the water (0.00s) by the version that uses a better algorithm:
pascal' :: Integer -> Integer
pascal :: Int -> Int
pascal' n = product [n+1..n*2] `div` product [2..n]
pascal = fromIntegral . (`mod` 1000000) . pascal' . fromIntegral
I need a simple function
is_square :: Int -> Bool
which determines if an Int N a perfect square (is there an integer x such that x*x = N).
Of course I can just write something like
is_square n = sq * sq == n
where sq = floor $ sqrt $ (fromIntegral n::Double)
but it looks terrible! Maybe there is a common simple way to implement such a predicate?
Think of it this way, if you have a positive int n, then you're basically doing a binary search on the range of numbers from 1 .. n to find the first number n' where n' * n' = n.
I don't know Haskell, but this F# should be easy to convert:
let is_perfect_square n =
let rec binary_search low high =
let mid = (high + low) / 2
let midSquare = mid * mid
if low > high then false
elif n = midSquare then true
else if n < midSquare then binary_search low (mid - 1)
else binary_search (mid + 1) high
binary_search 1 n
Guaranteed to be O(log n). Easy to modify perfect cubes and higher powers.
There is a wonderful library for most number theory related problems in Haskell included in the arithmoi package.
Use the Math.NumberTheory.Powers.Squares library.
Specifically the isSquare' function.
is_square :: Int -> Bool
is_square = isSquare' . fromIntegral
The library is optimized and well vetted by people much more dedicated to efficiency then you or I. While it currently doesn't have this kind of shenanigans going on under the hood, it could in the future as the library evolves and gets more optimized. View the source code to understand how it works!
Don't reinvent the wheel, always use a library when available.
I think the code you provided is the fastest that you are going to get:
is_square n = sq * sq == n
where sq = floor $ sqrt $ (fromIntegral n::Double)
The complexity of this code is: one sqrt, one double multiplication, one cast (dbl->int), and one comparison. You could try to use other computation methods to replace the sqrt and the multiplication with just integer arithmetic and shifts, but chances are it is not going to be faster than one sqrt and one multiplication.
The only place where it might be worth using another method is if the CPU on which you are running does not support floating point arithmetic. In this case the compiler will probably have to generate sqrt and double multiplication in software, and you could get advantage in optimizing for your specific application.
As pointed out by other answer, there is still a limitation of big integers, but unless you are going to run into those numbers, it is probably better to take advantage of the floating point hardware support than writing your own algorithm.
In a comment on another answer to this question, you discussed memoization. Keep in mind that this technique helps when your probe patterns exhibit good density. In this case, that would mean testing the same integers over and over. How likely is your code to repeat the same work and thus benefit from caching answers?
You didn't give us an idea of the distribution of your inputs, so consider a quick benchmark that uses the excellent criterion package:
module Main
where
import Criterion.Main
import Random
is_square n = sq * sq == n
where sq = floor $ sqrt $ (fromIntegral n::Double)
is_square_mem =
let check n = sq * sq == n
where sq = floor $ sqrt $ (fromIntegral n :: Double)
in (map check [0..] !!)
main = do
g <- newStdGen
let rs = take 10000 $ randomRs (0,1000::Int) g
direct = map is_square
memo = map is_square_mem
defaultMain [ bench "direct" $ whnf direct rs
, bench "memo" $ whnf memo rs
]
This workload may or may not be a fair representative of what you're doing, but as written, the cache miss rate appears too high:
Wikipedia's article on Integer Square Roots has algorithms can be adapted to suit your needs. Newton's method is nice because it converges quadratically, i.e., you get twice as many correct digits each step.
I would advise you to stay away from Double if the input might be bigger than 2^53, after which not all integers can be exactly represented as Double.
Oh, today I needed to determine if a number is perfect cube, and similar solution was VERY slow.
So, I came up with a pretty clever alternative
cubes = map (\x -> x*x*x) [1..]
is_cube n = n == (head $ dropWhile (<n) cubes)
Very simple. I think, I need to use a tree for faster lookups, but now I'll try this solution, maybe it will be fast enough for my task. If not, I'll edit the answer with proper datastructure
Sometimes you shouldn't divide problems into too small parts (like checks is_square):
intersectSorted [] _ = []
intersectSorted _ [] = []
intersectSorted xs (y:ys) | head xs > y = intersectSorted xs ys
intersectSorted (x:xs) ys | head ys > x = intersectSorted xs ys
intersectSorted (x:xs) (y:ys) | x == y = x : intersectSorted xs ys
squares = [x*x | x <- [ 1..]]
weird = [2*x+1 | x <- [ 1..]]
perfectSquareWeird = intersectSorted squares weird
There's a very simple way to test for a perfect square - quite literally, you check if the square root of the number has anything other than zero in the fractional part of it.
I'm assuming a square root function that returns a floating point, in which case you can do (Psuedocode):
func IsSquare(N)
sq = sqrt(N)
return (sq modulus 1.0) equals 0.0
It's not particularly pretty or fast, but here's a cast-free, FPA-free version based on Newton's method that works (slowly) for arbitrarily large integers:
import Control.Applicative ((<*>))
import Control.Monad (join)
import Data.Ratio ((%))
isSquare = (==) =<< (^2) . floor . (join g <*> join f) . (%1)
where
f n x = (x + n / x) / 2
g n x y | abs (x - y) > 1 = g n y $ f n y
| otherwise = y
It could probably be sped up with some additional number theory trickery.