I made the assumption that the number of factors is only large if the numbers involved have many small factors. So I used thaumkid's excellent algorithm, but first used an approximation to the factor count that is never too small. It's quite simple: Check for prime factors up to 29, then check the remaining number and calculate an upper bound for the nmber of factors. Use this to calculate an upper bound for the number of factors, and if that number is high enough, calculate the exact number of factors.

下面的代码不需要这个假设来保证正确性，但是为了快速。这似乎很有效;只有大约十万分之一的数字给出了足够高的估计，需要进行全面检查。

代码如下:

// Return at least the number of factors of n.
static uint64_t approxfactorcount (uint64_t n)
{
    uint64_t count = 1, add;

#define CHECK(d)                            \
    do {                                    \
        if (n % d == 0) {                   \
            add = count;                    \
            do { n /= d; count += add; }    \
            while (n % d == 0);             \
        }                                   \
    } while (0)

    CHECK ( 2); CHECK ( 3); CHECK ( 5); CHECK ( 7); CHECK (11); CHECK (13);
    CHECK (17); CHECK (19); CHECK (23); CHECK (29);
    if (n == 1) return count;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31) return count * 2;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37) return count * 4;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37) return count * 8;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41) return count * 16;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43) return count * 32;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47) return count * 64;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53) return count * 128;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59) return count * 256;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61) return count * 512;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61 * 67) return count * 1024;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61 * 67 * 71) return count * 2048;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61 * 67 * 71 * 73) return count * 4096;
    return count * 1000000;
}

// Return the number of factors of n.
static uint64_t factorcount (uint64_t n)
{
    uint64_t count = 1, add;

    CHECK (2); CHECK (3);

    uint64_t d = 5, inc = 2;
    for (; d*d <= n; d += inc, inc = (6 - inc))
        CHECK (d);

    if (n > 1) count *= 2; // n must be a prime number
    return count;
}

// Prints triangular numbers with record numbers of factors.
static void printrecordnumbers (uint64_t limit)
{
    uint64_t record = 30000;

    uint64_t count1, factor1;
    uint64_t count2 = 1, factor2 = 1;

    for (uint64_t n = 1; n <= limit; ++n)
    {
        factor1 = factor2;
        count1 = count2;

        factor2 = n + 1; if (factor2 % 2 == 0) factor2 /= 2;
        count2 = approxfactorcount (factor2);

        if (count1 * count2 > record)
        {
            uint64_t factors = factorcount (factor1) * factorcount (factor2);
            if (factors > record)
            {
                printf ("%lluth triangular number = %llu has %llu factors\n", n, factor1 * factor2, factors);
                record = factors;
            }
        }
    }
}

其中，14753024个三角形数有13824个因子用时约0.7秒，879207615个三角形数有61440个因子用时34秒，12524486975个三角形数有138240个因子用时10分5秒，26467,792064个三角形数有172032个因子用时21分25秒(2.4GHz Core2 Duo)，因此该代码平均每个数只需要116个处理器周期。最后一个三角数本身大于2^68，所以

更多关于C版本的数字和解释。显然这么多年来没人这么做过。记得给这个答案点赞，这样它就可以放在最上面，让每个人都能看到和学习。

第一步:作者程序的基准

笔记本电脑的规格:

CPU i3 M380 (931 MHz -最大省电模式) 4 gb内存 Win7 64位 微软Visual Studio 2012终极版 Cygwin与gcc 4.9.3 Python 2.7.10

命令:

compiling on VS x64 command prompt > `for /f %f in ('dir /b *.c') do cl /O2 /Ot /Ox %f -o %f_x64_vs2012.exe`
compiling on cygwin with gcc x64   > `for f in ./*.c; do gcc -m64 -O3 $f -o ${f}_x64_gcc.exe ; done`
time (unix tools) using cygwin > `for f in ./*.exe; do  echo "----------"; echo $f ; time $f ; done`

.

----------
$ time python ./original.py

real    2m17.748s
user    2m15.783s
sys     0m0.093s
----------
$ time ./original_x86_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.377s
user    0m0.015s
sys     0m0.000s
----------
$ time ./original_x64_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.408s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./original_x64_gcc.exe

real    0m20.951s
user    0m20.732s
sys     0m0.030s

文件名为:integertype_architecture_compiler.exe

Integertype目前与原始程序相同(稍后详细介绍) 架构是x86或x64，取决于编译器设置 编译器是GCC或vs2012

第二步:调查、改进和再次基准

VS比gcc快250%。这两个编译器应该给出类似的速度。显然，代码或编译器选项有问题。让我们调查!

首先要注意的是整数类型。转换可能很昂贵，一致性对于更好的代码生成和优化很重要。所有整数都应该是相同的类型。

它现在是int和long的混合体。我们要改进这一点。使用哪种类型?最快的。必须对它们进行基准测试!

----------
$ time ./int_x86_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.440s
user    0m0.016s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./int_x64_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.408s
user    0m0.016s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./int32_x86_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.408s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./int32_x64_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.362s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./int64_x86_vs2012.exe

real    0m18.112s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./int64_x64_vs2012.exe

real    0m18.611s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./long_x86_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.393s
user    0m0.015s
sys     0m0.000s
----------
$ time ./long_x64_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.440s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./uint32_x86_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.362s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./uint32_x64_vs2012.exe

real    0m8.393s
user    0m0.015s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./uint64_x86_vs2012.exe

real    0m15.428s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./uint64_x64_vs2012.exe

real    0m15.725s
user    0m0.015s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./int_x64_gcc.exe

real    0m8.531s
user    0m8.329s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./int32_x64_gcc.exe

real    0m8.471s
user    0m8.345s
sys     0m0.000s
----------
$ time ./int64_x64_gcc.exe

real    0m20.264s
user    0m20.186s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./long_x64_gcc.exe

real    0m20.935s
user    0m20.809s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./uint32_x64_gcc.exe

real    0m8.393s
user    0m8.346s
sys     0m0.015s
----------
$ time ./uint64_x64_gcc.exe

real    0m16.973s
user    0m16.879s
sys     0m0.030s

整数类型是int long int32_t uint32_t int64_t和uint64_t from #include <stdint.h>

C语言中有很多整数类型，还有一些带符号/无符号的可以使用，还有编译为x86或x64的选择(不要与实际的整数大小混淆)。要编译和运行^^的版本太多了

第三步:理解数字

最终结论:

32位整数比64位整数快200% 无符号64位整数比有符号64位快25%(不幸的是，我对此没有解释)

陷阱问题:“C语言中int和long的大小是多少?” 正确答案是:C中int和long的大小没有很好的定义!

来自C规范:

Int至少是32位 Long至少是int型

从gcc手册页(-m32和-m64标志):

32位环境将int、long和指针设置为32位，并生成可在任何i386系统上运行的代码。 64位环境将int设置为32位，long设置为64位，指针设置为64位，并为AMD的x86-64架构生成代码。

来自MSDN文档(数据类型范围)https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/s3f49ktz%28v=vs.110%29.aspx:

Int, 4字节，也是有符号的 Long, 4字节，也称为Long int和带符号的Long int

总结一下:吸取的教训

32位整数比64位整数快。 标准整数类型在C和c++中都没有很好地定义，它们取决于编译器和体系结构。当你需要一致性和可预测性时，使用uint32_t整数族从#include <stdint.h>。 速度问题解决。所有其他语言都落后百分之百，C和c++又赢了!他们总是这样。接下来的改进将是使用OpenMP:D进行多线程处理

问题1:Erlang、Python和Haskell是否会因为使用 任意长度的整数，只要值更小 比MAXINT ?

对于Erlang，第一个问题的答案是否定的。最后一个问题可以通过适当地使用Erlang来回答，如下所示:

http://bredsaal.dk/learning-erlang-using-projecteuler-net

由于它比您最初的C示例要快，我猜它会有很多问题，因为其他人已经详细讨论过了。

这个Erlang模块在一个便宜的上网本上执行大约5秒…它使用erlang中的网络线程模型，并演示了如何利用事件模型。它可以分布在许多节点上。而且速度很快。不是我的代码。

-module(p12dist).  
-author("Jannich Brendle, jannich@bredsaal.dk, http://blog.bredsaal.dk").  
-compile(export_all).

server() ->  
  server(1).

server(Number) ->  
  receive {getwork, Worker_PID} -> Worker_PID ! {work,Number,Number+100},  
  server(Number+101);  
  {result,T} -> io:format("The result is: \~w.\~n", [T]);  
  _ -> server(Number)  
  end.

worker(Server_PID) ->  
  Server_PID ! {getwork, self()},  
  receive {work,Start,End} -> solve(Start,End,Server_PID)  
  end,  
  worker(Server_PID).

start() ->  
  Server_PID = spawn(p12dist, server, []),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]).

solve(N,End,_) when N =:= End -> no_solution;

solve(N,End,Server_PID) ->  
  T=round(N*(N+1)/2),
  case (divisor(T,round(math:sqrt(T))) > 500) of  
    true ->  
      Server_PID ! {result,T};  
    false ->  
      solve(N+1,End,Server_PID)  
  end.

divisors(N) ->  
  divisor(N,round(math:sqrt(N))).

divisor(_,0) -> 1;  
divisor(N,I) ->  
  case (N rem I) =:= 0 of  
  true ->  
    2+divisor(N,I-1);  
  false ->  
    divisor(N,I-1)  
  end.

下面的测试发生在Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz上

~$ time erl -noshell -s p12dist start

The result is: 76576500.

^C

BREAK: (a)bort (c)ontinue (p)roc info (i)nfo (l)oaded
       (v)ersion (k)ill (D)b-tables (d)istribution
a

real    0m5.510s
user    0m5.836s
sys 0m0.152s

尝试:

package main

import "fmt"
import "math"

func main() {
    var n, m, c int
    for i := 1; ; i++ {
        n, m, c = i * (i + 1) / 2, int(math.Sqrt(float64(n))), 0
        for f := 1; f < m; f++ {
            if n % f == 0 { c++ }
    }
    c *= 2
    if m * m == n { c ++ }
    if c > 1001 {
        fmt.Println(n)
        break
        }
    }
}

我得到:

原始版本:9.1690 100% Go: 8.2520 111%

但使用:

package main

import (
    "math"
    "fmt"
 )

// Sieve of Eratosthenes
func PrimesBelow(limit int) []int {
    switch {
        case limit < 2:
            return []int{}
        case limit == 2:
            return []int{2}
    }
    sievebound := (limit - 1) / 2
    sieve := make([]bool, sievebound+1)
    crosslimit := int(math.Sqrt(float64(limit))-1) / 2
    for i := 1; i <= crosslimit; i++ {
        if !sieve[i] {
            for j := 2 * i * (i + 1); j <= sievebound; j += 2*i + 1 {
                sieve[j] = true
            }
        }
    }
    plimit := int(1.3*float64(limit)) / int(math.Log(float64(limit)))
    primes := make([]int, plimit)
    p := 1
    primes[0] = 2
    for i := 1; i <= sievebound; i++ {
        if !sieve[i] {
            primes[p] = 2*i + 1
            p++
            if p >= plimit {
                break
            }
        }
    }
    last := len(primes) - 1
    for i := last; i > 0; i-- {
        if primes[i] != 0 {
            break
        }
        last = i
    }
    return primes[0:last]
}



func main() {
    fmt.Println(p12())
}
// Requires PrimesBelow from utils.go
func p12() int {
    n, dn, cnt := 3, 2, 0
    primearray := PrimesBelow(1000000)
    for cnt <= 1001 {
        n++
        n1 := n
        if n1%2 == 0 {
            n1 /= 2
        }
        dn1 := 1
        for i := 0; i < len(primearray); i++ {
            if primearray[i]*primearray[i] > n1 {
                dn1 *= 2
                break
            }
            exponent := 1
            for n1%primearray[i] == 0 {
                exponent++
                n1 /= primearray[i]
            }
            if exponent > 1 {
                dn1 *= exponent
            }
            if n1 == 1 {
                break
            }
        }
        cnt = dn * dn1
        dn = dn1
    }
    return n * (n - 1) / 2
}

我得到:

原始版本:9.1690 100% Thaumkid的c版本:0.1060 8650% 首发版本:8.2520 111% 第二围棋版本:0.0230 39865%

我还尝试了Python3.6和pypy3.3-5.5-alpha:

原版本:8.629 100% Thaumkid的c版本:0.109 7916% python: 54.795 16% Pypy3.3-5.5-alpha: 13.291 65%

然后用下面的代码我得到:

原版本:8.629 100% Thaumkid的c版本:0.109 8650% Python3.6: 1.489 580% Pypy3.3-5.5-alpha: 0.582 1483%

def D(N):
    if N == 1: return 1
    sqrtN = int(N ** 0.5)
    nf = 1
    for d in range(2, sqrtN + 1):
        if N % d == 0:
            nf = nf + 1
    return 2 * nf - (1 if sqrtN**2 == N else 0)

L = 1000
Dt, n = 0, 0

while Dt <= L:
    t = n * (n + 1) // 2
    Dt = D(n/2)*D(n+1) if n%2 == 0 else D(n)*D((n+1)/2)
    n = n + 1

print (t)

I made the assumption that the number of factors is only large if the numbers involved have many small factors. So I used thaumkid's excellent algorithm, but first used an approximation to the factor count that is never too small. It's quite simple: Check for prime factors up to 29, then check the remaining number and calculate an upper bound for the nmber of factors. Use this to calculate an upper bound for the number of factors, and if that number is high enough, calculate the exact number of factors.

下面的代码不需要这个假设来保证正确性，但是为了快速。这似乎很有效;只有大约十万分之一的数字给出了足够高的估计，需要进行全面检查。

代码如下:

// Return at least the number of factors of n.
static uint64_t approxfactorcount (uint64_t n)
{
    uint64_t count = 1, add;

#define CHECK(d)                            \
    do {                                    \
        if (n % d == 0) {                   \
            add = count;                    \
            do { n /= d; count += add; }    \
            while (n % d == 0);             \
        }                                   \
    } while (0)

    CHECK ( 2); CHECK ( 3); CHECK ( 5); CHECK ( 7); CHECK (11); CHECK (13);
    CHECK (17); CHECK (19); CHECK (23); CHECK (29);
    if (n == 1) return count;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31) return count * 2;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37) return count * 4;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37) return count * 8;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41) return count * 16;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43) return count * 32;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47) return count * 64;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53) return count * 128;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59) return count * 256;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61) return count * 512;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61 * 67) return count * 1024;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61 * 67 * 71) return count * 2048;
    if (n < 1ull * 31 * 31 * 37 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59 * 61 * 67 * 71 * 73) return count * 4096;
    return count * 1000000;
}

// Return the number of factors of n.
static uint64_t factorcount (uint64_t n)
{
    uint64_t count = 1, add;

    CHECK (2); CHECK (3);

    uint64_t d = 5, inc = 2;
    for (; d*d <= n; d += inc, inc = (6 - inc))
        CHECK (d);

    if (n > 1) count *= 2; // n must be a prime number
    return count;
}

// Prints triangular numbers with record numbers of factors.
static void printrecordnumbers (uint64_t limit)
{
    uint64_t record = 30000;

    uint64_t count1, factor1;
    uint64_t count2 = 1, factor2 = 1;

    for (uint64_t n = 1; n <= limit; ++n)
    {
        factor1 = factor2;
        count1 = count2;

        factor2 = n + 1; if (factor2 % 2 == 0) factor2 /= 2;
        count2 = approxfactorcount (factor2);

        if (count1 * count2 > record)
        {
            uint64_t factors = factorcount (factor1) * factorcount (factor2);
            if (factors > record)
            {
                printf ("%lluth triangular number = %llu has %llu factors\n", n, factor1 * factor2, factors);
                record = factors;
            }
        }
    }
}

其中，14753024个三角形数有13824个因子用时约0.7秒，879207615个三角形数有61440个因子用时34秒，12524486975个三角形数有138240个因子用时10分5秒，26467,792064个三角形数有172032个因子用时21分25秒(2.4GHz Core2 Duo)，因此该代码平均每个数只需要116个处理器周期。最后一个三角数本身大于2^68，所以

在x86_64 Core2 Duo (2.5GHz)机器上使用GHC 7.0.3, gcc 4.4.6, Linux 2.6.29，对Haskell使用GHC -O2 - flvm - force-recomp编译，对C使用gcc -O3 -lm编译。

Your C routine runs in 8.4 seconds (faster than your run probably because of -O3) The Haskell solution runs in 36 seconds (due to the -O2 flag) Your factorCount' code isn't explicitly typed and defaulting to Integer (thanks to Daniel for correcting my misdiagnosis here!). Giving an explicit type signature (which is standard practice anyway) using Int and the time changes to 11.1 seconds in factorCount' you have needlessly called fromIntegral. A fix results in no change though (the compiler is smart, lucky for you). You used mod where rem is faster and sufficient. This changes the time to 8.5 seconds. factorCount' is constantly applying two extra arguments that never change (number, sqrt). A worker/wrapper transformation gives us:

 $ time ./so
 842161320  

 real    0m7.954s  
 user    0m7.944s  
 sys     0m0.004s  

没错，7.95秒。始终比C方案快半秒。没有- flvm标志，我仍然得到8.182秒，所以NCG后端在这种情况下也做得很好。

结论:Haskell非常棒。

生成的代码

factorCount number = factorCount' number isquare 1 0 - (fromEnum $ square == fromIntegral isquare)
    where square = sqrt $ fromIntegral number
          isquare = floor square

factorCount' :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int
factorCount' number sqrt candidate0 count0 = go candidate0 count0
  where
  go candidate count
    | candidate > sqrt = count
    | number `rem` candidate == 0 = go (candidate + 1) (count + 2)
    | otherwise = go (candidate + 1) count

nextTriangle index triangle
    | factorCount triangle > 1000 = triangle
    | otherwise = nextTriangle (index + 1) (triangle + index + 1)

main = print $ nextTriangle 1 1

编辑:现在我们已经探讨了这个问题，让我们来解决问题

问题1:erlang、python和haskell是否会因为使用 任意长度的整数，只要值更小 比MAXINT ?

在Haskell中，使用Integer比Int慢，但慢多少取决于执行的计算。幸运的是(对于64位机器)Int就足够了。出于可移植性的考虑，你可能应该重写我的代码，使用Int64或Word64 (C不是唯一的语言长)。

问题2:为什么haskell这么慢?有编译器标志吗 关闭刹车还是我的实现?(后者相当 就像haskell对我来说是一本有七个印章的书一样。) 问题3:你能给我一些建议吗 实现而不改变我确定因子的方式? 以任何方式优化:更好、更快、更“原生”的语言。

这就是我上面所回答的。答案是

0)通过-O2进行优化 1)尽可能使用快速(特别是不可装箱的)类型 2) rem not mod(一个经常被遗忘的优化)和 3)工人/包装器转换(可能是最常见的优化)。

问题4:我的功能实现是否允许LCO，因此 避免添加不必要的帧到调用堆栈?

是的，这不是问题所在。干得好，很高兴你考虑到这一点。