Skip to main content

performance tuning - Fast Trial Division


I'm going to write a custom Trial Division primality test. I know that PrimeQ will first try trial division and then switches to PowerMod.


TrialFactorFreeQ[N_, Max_] := 
(For[j = 1, j < Max && Divisible[N, Prime[j]] == False, j++];
Return[j == Max])


For example for testing a 300K digits number with first 100,000 primes, it took 4 seconds which is very slow since a real testing is applied for billions of primes.


In[179]:= Timing[TrialFactorFreeQ[3^1000000 + 2, 100000]]

Out[179]= {4.031, True}

Can it be optimized?




I wrote the parallel version and its timing seems good but when I wrap it in a function, the timing goes to sky:


p = 3^1000000 + 2;
max = Prime[100000];


In[85]:= ParallelTrialFactorFreeQ[Num_, Maxi_] := (IsFree = True;
ParallelDo[
If[Divisible[Num, i], IsFree = False; Break[]], {i,
Prime[Range[1, PrimePi[Maxi]]]}] If[! IsFree, AbortKernels[]];
Return[IsFree])

In[82]:= AbsoluteTiming[ParallelTrialFactorFreeQ[p, max]]

Out[82]= {18.2821829, True}


In[84]:= Timing[Num = p; Maxi = max;
IsFree = True;
ParallelDo[
If[Divisible[Num, i], IsFree = False; Break[]],
{i,Prime[Range[1, PrimePi[Maxi]]]}];
If[! IsFree, AbortKernels[]]; IsFree]

Out[84]= {0.609, True}




Updated


Based on the Daniel Lichtblau answer to my Fast Sieve Implementation question, I wrote a very fast Trial Division function which can be used for numbers that are larger than products of primes in the given range:


prod = Product[i, {i, Prime[Range[10^5]]}];

TrialFactorFreeQ2[n_] := GCD[n, prod] == 1

And a 10x speedup


n = 3^1000000 + 2;


Timing[TrialFactorFreeQ2[n]]


{0.375, True}




Answer



For me


 SetAttributes[ParallelTrialFactorFreeQ, HoldAll]

does the trick and reduces the measured time your function needs to evaluate down to what you would expect.



Additionally I noticed that specifying the method used by ParallelDo brings down the timing slightly. By try and error i figured that Method -> "CoarsestGrained" works best on my machine. For other methods have a look in the documentation of Parallelize in the MORE INFORMATION- section. Code looks as follows:


p = 3^1000000 + 2;
maxIndex = 100000;

.


ParallelTrialFactorFreeQ[Num_, MaxIndex_] := (
IsFree = True;
ParallelDo[
If[Divisible[Num, i], IsFree = False; Break[]],
{i, Prime[Range[1, MaxIndex]]},

Method -> "CoarsestGrained"]
If[! IsFree, AbortKernels[]];
Return[IsFree])

.


SetAttributes[ParallelTrialFactorFreeQ, HoldAll]

.


AbsoluteTiming[ParallelTrialFactorFreeQ[p, maxIndex]]



{2.611613, True} (* First Run *)


{2.0153128, True} (* Second Run *)



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]