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。

在许多情况下，由于缓存提高了性能，递归更快。例如，这是一个使用传统归并例程的归并排序的迭代版本。它将比递归实现运行得慢，因为缓存改进了性能。

迭代实现

public static void sort(Comparable[] a)
{
    int N = a.length;
    aux = new Comparable[N];
    for (int sz = 1; sz < N; sz = sz+sz)
        for (int lo = 0; lo < N-sz; lo += sz+sz)
            merge(a, lo, lo+sz-1, Math.min(lo+sz+sz-1, N-1));
}

递归实现

private static void sort(Comparable[] a, Comparable[] aux, int lo, int hi)
{
    if (hi <= lo) return;
    int mid = lo + (hi - lo) / 2;
    sort(a, aux, lo, mid);
    sort(a, aux, mid+1, hi);
    merge(a, aux, lo, mid, hi);
}

PS -这是Kevin Wayne教授(普林斯顿大学)在Coursera上的算法课程上讲的。

Your performance deteriorates when using recursion because calling a method, in any language, implies a lot of preparation: the calling code posts a return address, call parameters, some other context information such as processor registers might be saved somewhere, and at return time the called method posts a return value which is then retrieved by the caller, and any context information that was previously saved will be restored. the performance diff between an iterative and a recursive approach lies in the time these operations take.

从实现的角度来看，当处理调用上下文所需的时间与执行方法所需的时间相当时，您才真正开始注意到差异。如果递归方法的执行时间比调用上下文管理部分要长，那么就采用递归方法，因为代码通常更易于阅读和理解，而且不会注意到性能损失。否则，出于效率考虑，可以进行迭代。

据我所知，Perl没有优化尾递归调用，但是您可以伪造它。

sub f{
  my($l,$r) = @_;

  if( $l >= $r ){
    return $l;
  } else {

    # return f( $l+1, $r );

    @_ = ( $l+1, $r );
    goto &f;

  }
}

第一次调用时，它将在堆栈上分配空间。然后它将改变它的参数，并重新启动子例程，而不向堆栈添加任何东西。因此，它会假装从未调用过自己，将其转变为一个迭代过程。

注意，没有“my @_;”或“local @_;”，如果你这样做，它将不再工作。

把它写成递归，或者作为练习，可能会很有趣。

但是，如果要在生产中使用该代码，则需要考虑堆栈溢出的可能性。

尾递归优化可以消除堆栈溢出，但是您是否想要经历这样的麻烦，并且您需要知道您可以指望它在您的环境中进行优化。

每次算法递归，数据大小或n减少了多少?

If you are reducing the size of data or n by half every time you recurse, then in general you don't need to worry about stack overflow. Say, if it needs to be 4,000 level deep or 10,000 level deep for the program to stack overflow, then your data size need to be roughly 24000 for your program to stack overflow. To put that into perspective, a biggest storage device recently can hold 261 bytes, and if you have 261 of such devices, you are only dealing with 2122 data size. If you are looking at all the atoms in the universe, it is estimated that it may be less than 284. If you need to deal with all the data in the universe and their states for every millisecond since the birth of the universe estimated to be 14 billion years ago, it may only be 2153. So if your program can handle 24000 units of data or n, you can handle all data in the universe and the program will not stack overflow. If you don't need to deal with numbers that are as big as 24000 (a 4000-bit integer), then in general you don't need to worry about stack overflow.

但是，如果每次递归时都将数据或n的大小减小一个常数，那么当n仅变为20000时，就会遇到堆栈溢出。也就是说，当n为1000时，程序运行良好，你认为程序很好，然后在未来的某个时候，当n为5000或20000时，程序堆栈溢出。

所以如果你有堆栈溢出的可能，试着让它成为一个迭代的解决方案。

在很多情况下，它提供了比迭代方法更优雅的解决方案，常见的例子是遍历二叉树，所以它不一定更难维护。一般来说，迭代版本通常更快一些(在优化过程中可能会取代递归版本)，但递归版本更容易理解和正确实现。