<div dir="auto">Okay :)</div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El sáb., 12 oct. 2019 1:47 a. m., Andres Valloud via Cuis-dev <<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> escribió: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ok, how about we ship off the 8281 boundary code then? On 10/11/19 20:36, Agustín Sansone via Cuis-dev wrote: > This ir what I get: > > "3970 boundary" > Time millisecondsToRun: [10000 timesRepeat: [1 to: 8281 by: 8 do: [:x |x > isPrimeFast]]]. 5257 > > "8281 boundary" > Time millisecondsToRun: [10000 timesRepeat: [1 to: 8281 by: 8 do: [:x |x > isPrimeFast2]]]. 4104 > > El sáb., 12 oct. 2019 a las 0:02, Andres Valloud via Cuis-dev > (<<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>>) escribió: > > I think this happened because we are measuring against different number > sets so we ended up tuning to our tests. By the way, I'm having some > trouble getting reliable times, the figures seem to change by ~10% > without any obvious reason. For instance, for the last code you sent, > running that through some of the tests here results in times ranging > from 2272 to 2510 milliseconds --- and that's starting from a clean > system after a GC, so each run starts in the same conditions. That's a > lot of difference for a computer that should be roughly stable... > > Would you mind checking the numbers you get with the attached method? > It just takes your latest code and increases the boundary for the small > number loop to 8281. Here's why I'd like to see what happens for you: > > "your latest" > Time millisecondsToRun: [10000 timesRepeat: [1 to: 8281 by: 8 do: [:x | > x isPrimeFast1c]]] 1647 > > "attached here" > Time millisecondsToRun: [10000 timesRepeat: [1 to: 8281 by: 8 do: [:x | > x isPrimeFast1d]]] 1565 > > Andres. > > On 10/11/19 10:59, Agustín Sansone via Cuis-dev wrote: > > Latest code you sent: > > Time millisecondsToRun: > > [1 to: 10000000 do: [:e | e isPrimeFast]]. 16025 > > > > Latest code I sent: > > Time millisecondsToRun: > > [1 to: 10000000 do: [:e | e isPrimeFast]]. 14435 > > > > > > El vie., 11 oct. 2019 a las 2:09, Andres Valloud via Cuis-dev > > (<<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>>>) > escribió: > > > > Euclid's gcd algorithm converges to the answer exponentially > with base > > phi. Larger small integers help amortize the extra cost. > > > > On 10/10/19 21:53, Phil B wrote: > > > Was that primarily due to the 64-bit version mostly > fitting within > > > SmallInteger? I find many numeric performance issues just > melt > > away by > > > staying away from Large*Integer (and Fraction)... they're > great for > > > maintaining accuracy, lousy for performance. As in > multiples to > > orders > > > of magnitude worse depending on what you're doing. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:40 AM Andres Valloud via Cuis-dev > > > <<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>> > > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > Fascinating --- the gcd approach was pretty bad in 32 > bit land. > > > However, in 64 bits, the gcd batches are large enough to > > amortize the > > > cost, and that detects most composites without sending > > sqrtFloor. The > > > small integer threshold is now 91 squared. > > > > > > On 10/10/19 20:37, Agustín Sansone via Cuis-dev wrote: > > > > Well, what do you think? Are we done going > over this poor > > > method? > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I'm happy with this version. > > > > > > > -- > > > Cuis-dev mailing list > > > <a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>> > > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>>> > > > <a href="https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev</a> > > > > > -- > > Cuis-dev mailing list > > <a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>>> > > <a href="https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev</a> > > > > > -- > Cuis-dev mailing list > <a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a>> > <a href="https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev</a> > > -- Cuis-dev mailing list <a href="mailto:Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st</a> <a href="https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev</a> </blockquote></div>