如果我们使用循环而不是递归,或者反之,在两者都可以达到相同目的的算法中,性能是否会受到影响?检查给定的字符串是否是回文。 我见过许多程序员使用递归作为一种炫耀的手段,当一个简单的迭代算法可以满足要求。 编译器在决定使用什么时起着至关重要的作用吗?
当前回答
In C++ if the recursive function is a templated one, then the compiler has more chance to optimize it, as all the type deduction and function instantiations will occur in compile time. Modern compilers can also inline the function if possible. So if one uses optimization flags like -O3 or -O2 in g++, then recursions may have the chance to be faster than iterations. In iterative codes, the compiler gets less chance to optimize it, as it is already in the more or less optimal state (if written well enough).
在我的例子中,我试图通过使用Armadillo矩阵对象,以递归和迭代的方式来实现矩阵求幂。算法可以在这里找到…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation_by_squaring。 我的函数是模板化的,我已经计算了1,000,000个12x12矩阵的10次方。我得到了以下结果:
iterative + optimisation flag -O3 -> 2.79.. sec
recursive + optimisation flag -O3 -> 1.32.. sec
iterative + No-optimisation flag -> 2.83.. sec
recursive + No-optimisation flag -> 4.15.. sec
这些结果是使用gcc-4.8与c++11标志(-std=c++11)和Armadillo 6.1与Intel mkl获得的。英特尔编译器也显示了类似的结果。
其他回答
我相信java中的尾递归目前还没有优化。关于LtU和相关链接的详细讨论贯穿始终。它可能是即将到来的版本7中的一个功能,但显然,当与堆栈检查结合使用时,它会出现一些困难,因为某些帧会丢失。自Java 2以来,堆栈检查一直用于实现他们的细粒度安全模型。
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1333
递归的内存开销更大,因为每次递归调用通常都需要将一个内存地址推入堆栈,以便稍后程序可以返回到那个地址。
尽管如此,在许多情况下,递归比循环更自然、更可读——比如在处理树的时候。在这些情况下,我建议坚持使用递归。
我认为在(非尾)递归中,每当函数被调用时,分配一个新的堆栈等都会受到性能影响(当然取决于语言)。
如果我们使用循环而不是 递归或者反之,在算法中两者都可以达到相同的目的?”
Usually yes if you are writing in a imperative language iteration will run faster than recursion, the performance hit is minimized in problems where the iterative solution requires manipulating Stacks and popping items off of a stack due to the recursive nature of the problem. There are a lot of times where the recursive implementation is much easier to read because the code is much shorter, so you do want to consider maintainability. Especailly in cases where the problem has a recursive nature. So take for example:
河内塔的递归实现:
def TowerOfHanoi(n , source, destination, auxiliary):
if n==1:
print ("Move disk 1 from source",source,"to destination",destination)
return
TowerOfHanoi(n-1, source, auxiliary, destination)
print ("Move disk",n,"from source",source,"to destination",destination)
TowerOfHanoi(n-1, auxiliary, destination, source)
相当短,很容易读。将其与对应的迭代TowerOfHanoi进行比较:
# Python3 program for iterative Tower of Hanoi
import sys
# A structure to represent a stack
class Stack:
# Constructor to set the data of
# the newly created tree node
def __init__(self, capacity):
self.capacity = capacity
self.top = -1
self.array = [0]*capacity
# function to create a stack of given capacity.
def createStack(capacity):
stack = Stack(capacity)
return stack
# Stack is full when top is equal to the last index
def isFull(stack):
return (stack.top == (stack.capacity - 1))
# Stack is empty when top is equal to -1
def isEmpty(stack):
return (stack.top == -1)
# Function to add an item to stack.
# It increases top by 1
def push(stack, item):
if(isFull(stack)):
return
stack.top+=1
stack.array[stack.top] = item
# Function to remove an item from stack.
# It decreases top by 1
def Pop(stack):
if(isEmpty(stack)):
return -sys.maxsize
Top = stack.top
stack.top-=1
return stack.array[Top]
# Function to implement legal
# movement between two poles
def moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(src, dest, s, d):
pole1TopDisk = Pop(src)
pole2TopDisk = Pop(dest)
# When pole 1 is empty
if (pole1TopDisk == -sys.maxsize):
push(src, pole2TopDisk)
moveDisk(d, s, pole2TopDisk)
# When pole2 pole is empty
else if (pole2TopDisk == -sys.maxsize):
push(dest, pole1TopDisk)
moveDisk(s, d, pole1TopDisk)
# When top disk of pole1 > top disk of pole2
else if (pole1TopDisk > pole2TopDisk):
push(src, pole1TopDisk)
push(src, pole2TopDisk)
moveDisk(d, s, pole2TopDisk)
# When top disk of pole1 < top disk of pole2
else:
push(dest, pole2TopDisk)
push(dest, pole1TopDisk)
moveDisk(s, d, pole1TopDisk)
# Function to show the movement of disks
def moveDisk(fromPeg, toPeg, disk):
print("Move the disk", disk, "from '", fromPeg, "' to '", toPeg, "'")
# Function to implement TOH puzzle
def tohIterative(num_of_disks, src, aux, dest):
s, d, a = 'S', 'D', 'A'
# If number of disks is even, then interchange
# destination pole and auxiliary pole
if (num_of_disks % 2 == 0):
temp = d
d = a
a = temp
total_num_of_moves = int(pow(2, num_of_disks) - 1)
# Larger disks will be pushed first
for i in range(num_of_disks, 0, -1):
push(src, i)
for i in range(1, total_num_of_moves + 1):
if (i % 3 == 1):
moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(src, dest, s, d)
else if (i % 3 == 2):
moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(src, aux, s, a)
else if (i % 3 == 0):
moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(aux, dest, a, d)
# Input: number of disks
num_of_disks = 3
# Create three stacks of size 'num_of_disks'
# to hold the disks
src = createStack(num_of_disks)
dest = createStack(num_of_disks)
aux = createStack(num_of_disks)
tohIterative(num_of_disks, src, aux, dest)
Now the first one is way easier to read because suprise suprise shorter code is usually easier to understand than code that is 10 times longer. Sometimes you want to ask yourself is the extra performance gain really worth it? The amount of hours wasted debugging the code. Is the iterative TowerOfHanoi faster than the Recursive TowerOfHanoi? Probably, but not by a big margin. Would I like to program Recursive problems like TowerOfHanoi using iteration? Hell no. Next we have another recursive function the Ackermann function: Using recursion:
if m == 0:
# BASE CASE
return n + 1
elif m > 0 and n == 0:
# RECURSIVE CASE
return ackermann(m - 1, 1)
elif m > 0 and n > 0:
# RECURSIVE CASE
return ackermann(m - 1, ackermann(m, n - 1))
使用迭代:
callStack = [{'m': 2, 'n': 3, 'indentation': 0, 'instrPtr': 'start'}]
returnValue = None
while len(callStack) != 0:
m = callStack[-1]['m']
n = callStack[-1]['n']
indentation = callStack[-1]['indentation']
instrPtr = callStack[-1]['instrPtr']
if instrPtr == 'start':
print('%sackermann(%s, %s)' % (' ' * indentation, m, n))
if m == 0:
# BASE CASE
returnValue = n + 1
callStack.pop()
continue
elif m > 0 and n == 0:
# RECURSIVE CASE
callStack[-1]['instrPtr'] = 'after first recursive case'
callStack.append({'m': m - 1, 'n': 1, 'indentation': indentation + 1, 'instrPtr': 'start'})
continue
elif m > 0 and n > 0:
# RECURSIVE CASE
callStack[-1]['instrPtr'] = 'after second recursive case, inner call'
callStack.append({'m': m, 'n': n - 1, 'indentation': indentation + 1, 'instrPtr': 'start'})
continue
elif instrPtr == 'after first recursive case':
returnValue = returnValue
callStack.pop()
continue
elif instrPtr == 'after second recursive case, inner call':
callStack[-1]['innerCallResult'] = returnValue
callStack[-1]['instrPtr'] = 'after second recursive case, outer call'
callStack.append({'m': m - 1, 'n': returnValue, 'indentation': indentation + 1, 'instrPtr': 'start'})
continue
elif instrPtr == 'after second recursive case, outer call':
returnValue = returnValue
callStack.pop()
continue
print(returnValue)
再说一次,递归实现更容易理解。所以我的结论是,如果问题本质上是递归的,需要操作堆栈中的项,就使用递归。
这取决于“递归深度”。 这取决于函数调用开销对总执行时间的影响程度。
例如,用递归的方式计算经典阶乘是非常低效的,因为: —数据溢出风险 -栈溢出风险 —函数调用开销占执行时间的80%
同时开发一种最小-最大算法用于国际象棋游戏中的位置分析,该算法将分析后续的N步棋,可以在“分析深度”上以递归方式实现(正如我正在做的^_^)
推荐文章
- 在SQL Server上使用varchar(MAX) vs TEXT
- 就地基数排序
- .toArray(new MyClass[0]) or .toArray(new MyClass[myList.size()])?
- 是什么导致JNI调用变慢?
- 检查属性是否有属性
- 如何快速清除JavaScript对象?
- 投弹算法
- 排序10个数字的最快方法?(数字为32位)
- Node.js vs .Net性能
- 如果使用if-return-return或if-else-return?
- 数组与链表
- 为什么MYSQL的高LIMIT偏移量减慢查询?
- SQL JOIN vs IN性能?
- 计算趋势主题或标签的最佳方法是什么?
- 如何找到JavaScript数组中包含的最大数字?