Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.029 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.94; '*S*': 0.00; 'indicating': 0.07; 'indices': 0.07; 'plenty': 0.07; 'sys': 0.07; 'counting': 0.09; 'integers': 0.09; 'linear': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; 'stored': 0.12; '(and,': 0.16; '2.7.3': 0.16; 'algorithmic': 0.16; 'benjamin': 0.16; 'bisect': 0.16; 'integers.': 0.16; 'interval.': 0.16; 'say.': 0.16; 'storing': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'bit': 0.19; 'trying': 0.19; '>>>': 0.22; 'memory': 0.22; 'import': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'question': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; 'certain': 0.27; 'values': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'correct': 0.29; 'array': 0.29; 'compared': 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'gives': 0.31; '(on': 0.31; 'sep': 0.31; 'values.': 0.31; 'class': 0.32; 'themselves': 0.32; '(e.g.': 0.33; 'implemented': 0.33; 'not.': 0.33; 'sense': 0.34; "can't": 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'module.': 0.36; 'subject:List': 0.36; 'possible': 0.36; 'application': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'list': 0.37; 'saves': 0.38; 'rather': 0.38; 'realize': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'how': 0.40; 'numbers': 0.61; 'range': 0.61; 'simple': 0.61; "you're": 0.61; 'further': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'save': 0.62; 'more': 0.64; 'total': 0.65; 'different': 0.65; 'within': 0.65; 'here': 0.66; 'between': 0.67; 'obvious': 0.74; 'prime': 0.74; 'potentially': 0.81; 'savings': 0.81; 'discover': 0.82; 'billion.': 0.84; 'density': 0.84; 'faster.': 0.84; 'oscar': 0.84; 'approach.': 0.91; '2013': 0.98 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=jyqV+i/J0UHQG7RFrC/Dnsz5C4Zr0Y6OVaKn6rL+/w8=; b=OoTRuU2O3w/RXW4unBKAnvPCGS+hjKXRnZtCwsYrqDhldmfWcitxQ2nunjJ2s5s4FI bCRvhf47NASXwnZVQjMsG2XwuPQRZG77BYCpOLaRElSr2X2YGoiTymME/wzHpKC8YGbv 9B0uG05QI3aa9j7+ox4sm0IuKZTYNlJCr6Y13IYOWBSh7Lz2dOfmkGR+iYEsafgXi6UK Zq+9zoHL804sB96ANZGc9MYEMSb7t0JuhBWDrBfjOGGdIiZfjmkRMngN8edQ5we+fA7C TwhxX5tlpiIisuAveQE88OXeIyCERJ1WIzxr1OXNtz2Y098FbPazbDxzMr2izy9Wv3L3 Vtqg== X-Received: by 10.58.144.133 with SMTP id sm5mr20323722veb.23.1366661915973; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <51756769.20206@nowhere.org> References: <5175377f$0$29977$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <517545F7.5090209@nowhere.org> <51755C38.4000204@nowhere.org> <51756769.20206@nowhere.org> From: Oscar Benjamin Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:18:15 +0100 Subject: Re: List Count To: Blind Anagram Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: python-list@python.org X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 57 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1366661918 news.xs4all.nl 2296 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:53737 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:44108 On 22 April 2013 17:38, Blind Anagram wrote: > On 22/04/2013 17:06, Oscar Benjamin wrote: > >> I don't know what your application is but I would say that my first >> port of call here would be to consider a different algorithmic >> approach. An obvious question would be about the sparsity of this data >> structure. How frequent are the values that you are trying to count? >> Would it make more sense to store a list of their indices? > > Actually it is no more than a simple prime sieve implemented as a Python > class (and, yes, I realize that there are plenty of these around). If I understand correctly, you have a list of roughly a billion True/False values indicating which integers are prime and which are not. You would like to discover how many prime numbers there are between two numbers a and b. You currently do this by counting the number of True values in your list between the indices a and b. If my description is correct then I would definitely consider using a different algorithmic approach. The density of primes from 1 to 1 billlion is about 5%. Storing the prime numbers themselves in a sorted list would save memory and allow a potentially more efficient way of counting the number of primes within some interval. To see how it saves memory (on a 64 bit system): $ python Python 2.7.3 (default, Sep 26 2012, 21:51:14) [GCC 4.7.2] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import sys >>> a = ([True] + [False]*19) * 50000 >>> len(a) 1000000 >>> sys.getsizeof(a) 8000072 >>> a = list(range(50000)) >>> sys.getsizeof(a) 450120 >>> sum(sys.getsizeof(x) for x in a) 1200000 So you're using about 1/5th of the memory with a list of primes compared to a list of True/False values. Further savings would be possible if you used an array to store the primes as 64 bit integers. In this case it would take about 400MB to store all the primes up to 1 billion. The more efficient way of counting the primes would then be to use the bisect module. This gives you a way of counting the primes between a and b with a cost that is logarithmic in the total number of primes stored rather than linear in the size of the range (e.g. b-a). For large enough primes/ranges this is certain to be faster. Whether it actually works that way for your numbers I can't say. Oscar