Difference between revisions of "Performance/Integers"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DonStewart (talk | contribs) (Some performance comments on Integers) |
(+cat) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Performance infobox}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | [[Category:Performance|Integers]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
''Int'' (the machine word-sized integer type) is faster than the arbitrary |
''Int'' (the machine word-sized integer type) is faster than the arbitrary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
like inner loops. |
like inner loops. |
||
| − | That being said, Haskell (or at least GHC's) ''Integer'' |
+ | That being said, the Haskell (or at least GHC's) implementation of ''Integer'' is very fast, |
as far as arbitrary precision arithmetic goes. |
as far as arbitrary precision arithmetic goes. |
||
Latest revision as of 11:31, 13 January 2007
| Haskell Performance Resource
Constructs: Techniques: |
Integers
Int (the machine word-sized integer type) is faster than the arbitrary precision Integer type. So don't use Integer in critical places, like inner loops.
That being said, the Haskell (or at least GHC's) implementation of Integer is very fast, as far as arbitrary precision arithmetic goes.