User talk:WillNess: Difference between revisions
→Space complexity improvement -- Hamming numbers: Hopefully final comment on this...
(→Space complexity improvement -- Hamming numbers: remove; not sure about this) |
GordonBGood (talk | contribs) (→Space complexity improvement -- Hamming numbers: Hopefully final comment on this...) |
||
Line 80:
::::::: BTW, I got 1B:0.45s-269MB and 10B:1.75s-1343MB, which suggests 1T:38s-'''28.8GB''' ''"total memory in use"''. The fold-based version indeed did good at 1T:11.2s-'''10MB'''. I use the signature <code>Int -> (Double, (Int,Int,Int))</code> which produced the fastest code in my tests (simple -O2). -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 17:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: Looks good; it's still about three times slower and uses more memory than 1T:3.75s:3MB "total memory in use" (from local) as for my version on IdeOne but it is good as referents will have a choice. I went back to using Word64 as the fastest (just a slightly higher range than Int) even for 32-bit code as it is faster, since it then uses the same type for the internal count. it looks like for all the Monoid stuff to work as you would like to see it there will have to be all kinds of specializations that haven't been added - complex stuff, and doing "concat" efficiently has always been a headache. --[[User:GordonBGood|GordonBGood]] ([[User talk:GordonBGood|talk]]) 00:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
| |||