看看您的Erlang实现。计时包括启动整个虚拟机、运行程序和停止虚拟机。我很确定设置和停止erlang vm需要一些时间。

If the timing was done within the erlang virtual machine itself, results would be different as in that case we would have the actual time for only the program in question. Otherwise, i believe that the total time taken by the process of starting and loading of the Erlang Vm plus that of halting it (as you put it in your program) are all included in the total time which the method you are using to time the program is outputting. Consider using the erlang timing itself which we use when we want to time our programs within the virtual machine itself timer:tc/1 or timer:tc/2 or timer:tc/3. In this way, the results from erlang will exclude the time taken to start and stop/kill/halt the virtual machine. That is my reasoning there, think about it, and then try your bench mark again.

实际上，我建议我们尝试在这些语言的运行时内为程序计时(对于具有运行时的语言)，以便获得精确的值。例如，C不像Erlang、Python和Haskell那样有启动和关闭运行时系统的开销(98%确定-我可以纠正)。因此(基于这个推理)我总结说，这个基准测试对于运行在运行时系统之上的语言来说不够精确/公平。让我们用这些更改再做一次。

编辑:此外，即使所有的语言都有运行时系统，启动和停止它们的开销也会有所不同。因此，我建议我们从运行时系统内部计时(对于应用此方法的语言)。众所周知，Erlang VM在启动时有相当大的开销!

c++ 11， < 20ms for me -在这里运行它

我理解您想要一些技巧来帮助提高您的语言特定知识，但由于这里已经很好地介绍了这一点，我想我应该为那些可能看过您的问题的mathematica注释等并想知道为什么这段代码如此之慢的人添加一些上下文。

这个答案主要是为了提供上下文，希望能够帮助人们更容易地评估您的问题/其他答案中的代码。

这段代码只使用了一些(丑陋的)优化，与所使用的语言无关，基于:

每个三角数的形式都是n(n+1)/2 N和N +1是互质 除数的数量是一个乘法函数

#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
#include <tuple>
#include <chrono>

using namespace std;

// Calculates the divisors of an integer by determining its prime factorisation.

int get_divisors(long long n)
{
    int divisors_count = 1;

    for(long long i = 2;
        i <= sqrt(n);
        /* empty */)
    {
        int divisions = 0;
        while(n % i == 0)
        {
            n /= i;
            divisions++;
        }

        divisors_count *= (divisions + 1);

        //here, we try to iterate more efficiently by skipping
        //obvious non-primes like 4, 6, etc
        if(i == 2)
            i++;
        else
            i += 2;
    }

    if(n != 1) //n is a prime
        return divisors_count * 2;
    else
        return divisors_count;
}

long long euler12()
{
    //n and n + 1
    long long n, n_p_1;

    n = 1; n_p_1 = 2;

    // divisors_x will store either the divisors of x or x/2
    // (the later iff x is divisible by two)
    long long divisors_n = 1;
    long long divisors_n_p_1 = 2;

    for(;;)
    {
        /* This loop has been unwound, so two iterations are completed at a time
         * n and n + 1 have no prime factors in common and therefore we can
         * calculate their divisors separately
         */

        long long total_divisors;                 //the divisors of the triangle number
                                                  // n(n+1)/2

        //the first (unwound) iteration

        divisors_n_p_1 = get_divisors(n_p_1 / 2); //here n+1 is even and we

        total_divisors =
                  divisors_n
                * divisors_n_p_1;

        if(total_divisors > 1000)
            break;

        //move n and n+1 forward
        n = n_p_1;
        n_p_1 = n + 1;

        //fix the divisors
        divisors_n = divisors_n_p_1;
        divisors_n_p_1 = get_divisors(n_p_1);   //n_p_1 is now odd!

        //now the second (unwound) iteration

        total_divisors =
                  divisors_n
                * divisors_n_p_1;

        if(total_divisors > 1000)
            break;

        //move n and n+1 forward
        n = n_p_1;
        n_p_1 = n + 1;

        //fix the divisors
        divisors_n = divisors_n_p_1;
        divisors_n_p_1 = get_divisors(n_p_1 / 2);   //n_p_1 is now even!
    }

    return (n * n_p_1) / 2;
}

int main()
{
    for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
    {
        using namespace std::chrono;
        auto start = high_resolution_clock::now();
        auto result = euler12();
        auto end = high_resolution_clock::now();

        double time_elapsed = duration_cast<milliseconds>(end - start).count();

        cout << result << " " << time_elapsed << '\n';
    }
    return 0;
}

我的台式机平均花费19毫秒，笔记本电脑平均花费80毫秒，这与我在这里看到的大多数其他代码相差甚远。毫无疑问，还有许多优化方法可用。

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

只是为了好玩。下面是一个更“原生”的Haskell实现:

import Control.Applicative
import Control.Monad
import Data.Either
import Math.NumberTheory.Powers.Squares

isInt :: RealFrac c => c -> Bool
isInt = (==) <$> id <*> fromInteger . round

intSqrt :: (Integral a) => a -> Int
--intSqrt = fromIntegral . floor . sqrt . fromIntegral
intSqrt = fromIntegral . integerSquareRoot'

factorize :: Int -> [Int]
factorize 1 = []
factorize n = first : factorize (quot n first)
  where first = (!! 0) $ [a | a <- [2..intSqrt n], rem n a == 0] ++ [n]

factorize2 :: Int -> [(Int,Int)]
factorize2 = foldl (\ls@((val,freq):xs) y -> if val == y then (val,freq+1):xs else (y,1):ls) [(0,0)] . factorize

numDivisors :: Int -> Int
numDivisors = foldl (\acc (_,y) -> acc * (y+1)) 1 <$> factorize2

nextTriangleNumber :: (Int,Int) -> (Int,Int)
nextTriangleNumber (n,acc) = (n+1,acc+n+1)

forward :: Int -> (Int, Int) -> Either (Int, Int) (Int, Int)
forward k val@(n,acc) = if numDivisors acc > k then Left val else Right (nextTriangleNumber val)

problem12 :: Int -> (Int, Int)
problem12 n = (!!0) . lefts . scanl (>>=) (forward n (1,1)) . repeat . forward $ n

main = do
  let (n,val) = problem12 1000
  print val

使用ghc -O3，它在我的机器上持续运行0.55-0.58秒(1.73GHz Core i7)。

C版本中一个更有效的factorCount函数:

int factorCount (int n)
{
  int count = 1;
  int candidate,tmpCount;
  while (n % 2 == 0) {
    count++;
    n /= 2;
  }
    for (candidate = 3; candidate < n && candidate * candidate < n; candidate += 2)
    if (n % candidate == 0) {
      tmpCount = 1;
      do {
        tmpCount++;
        n /= candidate;
      } while (n % candidate == 0);
       count*=tmpCount;
      }
  if (n > 1)
    count *= 2;
  return count;
}

在main中使用gcc -O3 -lm将long类型更改为int类型，该程序始终在0.31-0.35秒内运行。

如果您利用第n个三角形数= n*(n+1)/2，并且n和(n+1)具有完全不同的质因数分解，则可以使两者运行得更快，因此可以将每个一半的因数数相乘，以得到整体的因数数。以下几点:

int main ()
{
  int triangle = 0,count1,count2 = 1;
  do {
    count1 = count2;
    count2 = ++triangle % 2 == 0 ? factorCount(triangle+1) : factorCount((triangle+1)/2);
  } while (count1*count2 < 1001);
  printf ("%lld\n", ((long long)triangle)*(triangle+1)/2);
}

将c代码的运行时间减少到0.17-0.19秒，它可以处理更大的搜索——大于10000个因数在我的机器上大约需要43秒。我给感兴趣的读者留下了类似的haskell加速。

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>

int factorCount (long n)
{
    double square = sqrt (n);
    int isquare = (int) square+1;
    long candidate = 2;
    int count = 1;
    while(candidate <= isquare && candidate <= n){
        int c = 1;
        while (n % candidate == 0) {
           c++;
           n /= candidate;
        }
        count *= c;
        candidate++;
    }
    return count;
}

int main ()
{
    long triangle = 1;
    int index = 1;
    while (factorCount (triangle) < 1001)
    {
        index ++;
        triangle += index;
    }
    printf ("%ld\n", triangle);
}

gcc -lm -Ofast euler.c

时间。/ a.o ut

2.79s user 0.00s system 99% CPU 2.794 total