Concurrent Prime Generator

Question

I\'m going through the problems on projecteuler.net to learn how to program in Erlang, and I am having the hardest time creating a prime generator that can create all of the

Answer 1

Two quick single-process erlang prime generators; sprimes generates all primes under 2m in ~2.7 seconds, fprimes ~3 seconds on my computer (Macbook with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo). Both are based on the Sieve of Eratosthenes, but since Erlang works best with lists, rather than arrays, both keep a list of non-eliminated primes, checking for divisibility by the current head and keeping an accumulator of verified primes. Both also implement a prime wheel to do initial reduction of the list.

-module(primes).
-export([sprimes/1, wheel/3, fprimes/1, filter/2]).    

sieve([H|T], M) when H=< M -> [H|sieve([X || X<- T, X rem H /= 0], M)];
sieve(L, _) -> L.
sprimes(N) -> [2,3,5,7|sieve(wheel(11, [2,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,6,6,2,6,4,2,6,4,6,8,4,2,4,2,4,8,6,4,6,2,4,6,2,6,6,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,2,10,2,10], N), math:sqrt(N))].

wheel([X|Xs], _Js, M) when X > M ->
    lists:reverse(Xs);
wheel([X|Xs], [J|Js], M) ->
    wheel([X+J,X|Xs], lazy:next(Js), M);
wheel(S, Js, M) ->
    wheel([S], lazy:lazy(Js), M).

fprimes(N) ->
    fprimes(wheel(11, [2,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,6,6,2,6,4,2,6,4,6,8,4,2,4,2,4,8,6,4,6,2,4,6,2,6,6,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,2,10,2,10], N), [7,5,3,2], N).
fprimes([H|T], A, Max) when H*H =< Max ->
    fprimes(filter(H, T), [H|A], Max);
fprimes(L, A, _Max) -> lists:append(lists:reverse(A), L).

filter(N, L) ->
    filter(N, N*N, L, []).
filter(N, N2, [X|Xs], A) when X < N2 ->
    filter(N, N2, Xs, [X|A]);
filter(N, _N2, L, A) ->
    filter(N, L, A).
filter(N, [X|Xs], A) when X rem N /= 0 ->
    filter(N, Xs, [X|A]);
filter(N, [_X|Xs], A) ->
    filter(N, Xs, A);
filter(_N, [], A) ->
    lists:reverse(A).

lazy:lazy/1 and lazy:next/1 refer to a simple implementation of pseudo-lazy infinite lists:

lazy(L) ->
    repeat(L).

repeat(L) -> L++[fun() -> L end].

next([F]) -> F()++[F];
next(L) -> L.

Prime generation by sieves is not a great place for concurrency (but it could use parallelism in checking for divisibility, although the operation is not sufficiently complex to justify the additional overhead of all parallel filters I have written thus far).

`

Answer 2

The Sieve of Eratosthenes is fairly easy to implement but -- as you have discovered -- not the most efficient. Have you tried the Sieve of Atkin?

Sieve of Atkin @ Wikipedia

Answer 3

here is a vb version

    'Sieve of Eratosthenes 
'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes 
'1. Create a contiguous list of numbers from two to some highest number n. 
'2. Strike out from the list all multiples of two (4, 6, 8 etc.). 
'3. The list's next number that has not been struck out is a prime number. 
'4. Strike out from the list all multiples of the number you identified in the previous step. 
'5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you reach a number that is greater than the square root of n (the highest number in the list). 
'6. All the remaining numbers in the list are prime. 
Private Function Sieve_of_Eratosthenes(ByVal MaxNum As Integer) As List(Of Integer)
    'tested to MaxNum = 10,000,000 - on 1.8Ghz Laptop it took 1.4 seconds
    Dim thePrimes As New List(Of Integer)
    Dim toNum As Integer = MaxNum, stpw As New Stopwatch
    If toNum > 1 Then 'the first prime is 2
        stpw.Start()
        thePrimes.Capacity = toNum 'size the list
        Dim idx As Integer
        Dim stopAT As Integer = CInt(Math.Sqrt(toNum) + 1)
        '1. Create a contiguous list of numbers from two to some highest number n.
        '2. Strike out from the list all multiples of 2, 3, 5. 
        For idx = 0 To toNum
            If idx > 5 Then
                If idx Mod 2 <> 0 _
                AndAlso idx Mod 3 <> 0 _
                AndAlso idx Mod 5 <> 0 Then thePrimes.Add(idx) Else thePrimes.Add(-1)
            Else
                thePrimes.Add(idx)
            End If
        Next
        'mark 0,1 and 4 as non-prime
        thePrimes(0) = -1
        thePrimes(1) = -1
        thePrimes(4) = -1
        Dim aPrime, startAT As Integer
        idx = 7 'starting at 7 check for primes and multiples 
        Do
            '3. The list's next number that has not been struck out is a prime number. 
            '4. Strike out from the list all multiples of the number you identified in the previous step. 
            '5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you reach a number that is greater than the square root of n (the highest number in the list). 
            If thePrimes(idx) <> -1 Then ' if equal to -1 the number is not a prime
                'not equal to -1 the number is a prime
                aPrime = thePrimes(idx)
                'get rid of multiples 
                startAT = aPrime * aPrime
                For mltpl As Integer = startAT To thePrimes.Count - 1 Step aPrime
                    If thePrimes(mltpl) <> -1 Then thePrimes(mltpl) = -1
                Next
            End If
            idx += 2 'increment index 
        Loop While idx < stopAT
        '6. All the remaining numbers in the list are prime. 
        thePrimes = thePrimes.FindAll(Function(i As Integer) i <> -1)
        stpw.Stop()
        Debug.WriteLine(stpw.ElapsedMilliseconds)
    End If
    Return thePrimes
End Function

Answer 4

I wrote an Eratosthenesque concurrent prime sieve using the Go and channels.

Here is the code: http://github.com/aht/gosieve

I blogged about it here: http://blog.onideas.ws/eratosthenes.go

The program can sieve out the first million primes (all primes upto 15,485,863) in about 10 seconds. The sieve is concurrent, but the algorithm is mainly synchronous: there are far too many synchronization points required between goroutines ("actors" -- if you like) and thus they can not roam freely in parallel.

Answer 5

The 'badarity' error means that you're trying to call a 'fun' with the wrong number of arguments. In this case...

%%L = for(1,N, fun() -> spawn(fun(I) -> wait(I,N) end) end),

The for/3 function expects a fun of arity 1, and the spawn/1 function expects a fun of arity 0. Try this instead:

L = for(1, N, fun(I) -> spawn(fun() -> wait(I, N) end) end),

The fun passed to spawn inherits needed parts of its environment (namely I), so there's no need to pass it explicitly.

While calculating primes is always good fun, please keep in mind that this is not the kind of problem Erlang was designed to solve. Erlang was designed for massive actor-style concurrency. It will most likely perform rather badly on all examples of data-parallel computation. In many cases, a sequential solution in, say, ML will be so fast that any number of cores will not suffice for Erlang to catch up, and e.g. F# and the .NET Task Parallel Library would certainly be a much better vehicle for these kinds of operations.

Answer 6

Another alternative to consider is to use probabalistic prime generation. There is an example of this in Joe's book (the "prime server") which uses Miller-Rabin I think...