speed of mpq_cmp vs mpq_sub
marc.glisse at inria.fr
Mon May 23 07:44:14 UTC 2016
On Mon, 23 May 2016, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
> Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at inria.fr> writes:
> Note that after the multiplications by 3 and 5 (or 101 and 103), the
> highparts are different. Or even simpler if den2 = 2 * den1. So this
> would only apply in a few cases.
> Right. My proposal seems rather dense after some sleep.
> Perhaps we could modify the code to:
> 1. Check for equal denominators.
> The expected runtime for this assuming random operands is O(1). The
> worst-case runtime is O(n) where n is the total size of the
> operands. (When the optimisation triggers, the runtime is O(m)
> ... O(n) where m is the total size of the denominators.)
> 2. Perform an initial cross-product just using the topmost bits of all
> operands. Here we could either extract up to GMP_NUMB_BITS/2 bits
> and use plain *, or extract up to GMP_NUMB_BITS and rely on
> We can use the bit counting code already present to locate the bits
> which we need to extract.
> To make the tests as tight as possible we could use some simple
> interval arithmetic (as opposed to just applying a safety margin).
> This is O(1) but will need perhaps 20 cycles.
> To avoid adding overhead for small operands, we could suppress the
> trickery for expected products of (say) less than 3 limbs.
Just checking: I don't think this will help when comparing p/q with
(2p+1)/2q. Anything that doesn't somehow involve the gcd of the
denominators will still require the full multiplications and be much
slower than a subtraction for that case. But that's probably inevitable,
since computing the gcd would likely be slower in many cases.
(I think in the program I posted the denominators are all powers of 2,
which helps for the gcd computation...)
Now your proposition may still help in other cases. The initial
cross-product / interval arithmetic thing sounds like it would handle
quite a few more cases than the current bitlength tests. In particular,
the *101 / *103 should become fast :-)
More information about the gmp-discuss