On 29/03/2015 22:21, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 28/03/2015 23:50, BartC wrote:
On 28/03/2015 03:39, Sayth wrote:
Good test for pypy to see where it's speed sits between C and Python.
Python 3.1: 1700 seconds (normal Python interpreter)
PyPy: 93 seconds
C unoptimised: 17 seconds (gcc -O0 32-bit)
C optimised: 3.3 seconds (gcc -O3 32-bit)
https://attractivechaos.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/an-incomplete-review-of-sudoku-solver-implementations/
"The fastest Sudoku solver can solve even the hardest Sudoku in about 1
millisecond and solve most others in 0.1 millisecond."
Blimey, we might as well pack up and go home then!
Actually I didn't realise people took these things so seriously. I came
into the thread when I thought it was being suggested that brute-force
approaches to this problem were not viable.
I think to be useful, it needs to work in a reasonable amount of time,
and a few seconds would be more than reasonable; it doesn't need to be
100 microseconds. Unless somehow somebody's got millions of the things
to get through.
But I guess people aren't interested in actually solving the daily
sudoku in the paper** (that would be very dull); maybe there is more
sport in finding a faster machine solution than anyone else.
(I'm more interested now in getting my own dynamic language to compete
with PyPy, and in getting own static language to compete with C/gcc, as
the timing for this benchmark was pretty bad.)
(** Although I did come across a prize 16x16 sudoku in the paper a few
years back. I adapted my code to 16x16 in 10 minutes or so, which took a
further couple of minutes to solve the given puzzle, and sent it in. But
I didn't win...)
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
