Anonymous user
Talk:Strange unique prime triplets: Difference between revisions
m
→added a stretch goal: added some comments concerning optimization.
(→added a stretch goal: Thanks to Pete.) |
m (→added a stretch goal: added some comments concerning optimization.) |
||
Line 46:
::::::Certainly 28 billion in 48 minutes (you know who you are) has gone too far, without some better or interesting or clever approach. <br>
::::::[I take any timings with a big pinch of salt, mostly don't really care that much about 4 or 8x, but certainly want to see any 20 or 100x.]<br>
::::::However, I would strongly defend the right of any draft task to be a "moving target" for at least 5 days, besides, no-one is forced to post an entry until things settle down. Otherwise, point taken, I largely agree, elegance beats speed anyday. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 15:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the hint about using an intermediate sum being faster. It doesn't make much difference to Go (down to 1.25 seconds) but it knocks 9 seconds off Wren (down to 21 seconds) so i'm very pleased with that :) --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::: The REXX entry made use of an intermediate sum from the get-go. It essentially cuts the number of additions by half. The next big speed improvement was just using odd numbers for the search. I had experimented with the idea of just using primes, as the REXX code that generates primes builds them in a sequential list. But it made the code a lot harder to understand, even though it was a bit faster. As it is, using an associative array instead of an '''isPrime''' function is very fast (a simple '''if''' instead of invoking a function). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 16:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||