It includes clever use of the vec operator.
Maybe there's historical reasons for using vec over substr, but nowadays it's much faster to use substr. The for my $foo ($from .. $to) { ... } construct is also slightly more efficiently than for (my $foo = $from; $foo <= $to; $foo++) { ... }. My guess is that the C-style loop was used as the "range loop" wasn't optimized back then and actually generated a list of, in this case, a million numbers.
I changed the for loop and did a direct translation to using substr instead of vec, and here's the results:
Here's the code:Benchmark: running substr, vec for at least 60 CPU seconds... substr: 61 wallclock secs (62.41 usr + 0.02 sys = 62.42 CPU) @ 1 +.09/s (n=68) vec: 58 wallclock secs (60.64 usr + 0.02 sys = 60.66 CPU) @ 0 +.73/s (n=44) s/iter vec substr vec 1.38 -- -33% substr 0.918 50% --
use strict; use warnings; use Benchmark qw(cmpthese timethese); my %subs; ###################################################################### +######### my $UPPER = 1_000_000; $subs{vec} = sub { my $sieve = ""; GUESS: for my $guess (2 .. $UPPER) { next GUESS if vec($sieve,$guess,1); #print "$guess\n"; for (my $mults = $guess * $guess; $mults <= $UPPER; $mults += +$guess) { vec($sieve,$mults,1) = 1; } } }; $subs{substr} = sub { my $sieve = '0' x ($UPPER + 1); GUESS: for my $guess (2 .. $UPPER) { next GUESS if substr($sieve,$guess,1); #print "$guess\n"; for (my $mults = $guess * $guess; $mults <= $UPPER; $mults += +$guess) { substr($sieve,$mults,1,1); } } }; ###################################################################### +######### cmpthese(timethese(-60, \%subs));
lodin
In reply to Re^2: To Findout Prime number
by lodin
in thread To Findout Prime number
by babug_prg
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |