Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:47:19 GMT
Message-Id: <199901191647.QAA06463@squall.cise.npl.co.uk>
From: Toby Moth <tm1@cise.npl.co.uk>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: counting words
Remember the program in K & R for counting the number of occurrences of all the words in some input (K&R2, 6.5) ? Anyway, I happened to mention this program to a friend whilst a Perl hacker was listening in. To our surprise, the Perl programmer wrote a word counting program, including a binary tree sort, as we spoke. My friend then wrote his own rather less faithful but elegant version of this program in C++. Finally, I decided to write 2 OCAML versions - one using explicit buffering and streams, the other giving much of the work to ocamllex.
The surprise (at least for me) was this - both ocaml versions were significantly faster than the C++ solution. I think the Perl program wins on style. It is closest to the K&R solution and handles white space most cleverly. However, we all know that OCAML can be written stylishly. The point which I am only just beginning to appreciate is that OCAML is remarkably fast. After all, this is just the sort of program which people usually say should be written in C/C++ because it will then run faster.
Here are some results just to give a flavour of relative speeds on an Ultra 5.
[tm1]$ ls -l tm.dv
-rw-rw-r-- 1 tm1 this 452849 Jan 13 13:06 tm.dv
[tm1]$ time cat tm.dv | perl ~/lang/perl/wc.pl > pcount
real 0m28.604s PERL
user 0m28.260s
sys 0m0.100s
[tm1]$ time cat tm.dv | ~/lang/c/wc > ccount
real 0m2.708s C++
user 0m2.260s
sys 0m0.180s
[tm1]$ time cat tm.dv | ~/lang/caml/ywc > mcount
real 0m0.999s OCAML
user 0m0.720s
sys 0m0.080s
And here is the code -
PERL ( by Robin Barker )
--- package Tree;sub new { bless { count => 0 } } sub putintree { my($tree,$value) = @_; if( $tree->{count} ) { if( $tree->{value} lt $value ) { $tree->{up} -> putintree($value) } elsif( $tree->{value} gt $value ) { $tree->{down} -> putintree($value) } else { $tree->{count}++ } } else { $tree->{up} = new Tree; $tree->{down} = new Tree; $tree->{value} = $value; $tree->{count} = 1; } }
sub show { my $tree = shift; if( $tree -> {count} ) { $tree -> {down} -> show; printf "%4d\t%s\n", $tree->{count}, $tree->{value}; $tree -> {up} -> show; } }
package main;
my $tree = new Tree;
while( <> ) { for ( /\w+/g ) { $tree-> putintree ($&) } }
$tree->show;
---
C++ ( by Steve Gardner, also an OCAML fan ) > Steve says: > "This might be faster if it used lex"
--- #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <map>
int main() { string buf; typedef map<string, long> mymap; mymap vec;
while (cin >> buf) ++vec[buf];
for (mymap::const_iterator p = vec.begin(); p != vec.end(); ++p) cout << p->first << ": " << p->second << endl; }
---
OCAML ( by me. Forgive me any blemishes - I mean well )
--- (*** Lexer Approach to Word Count ***)
{ let hash = Hashtbl.create 101
let hash_add string = try let v = Hashtbl.find hash string in v:= !v + 1 with Not_found -> Hashtbl.add hash string (ref 1) }
rule read = parse [' ' '\n' '\r' '\t']+ { read lexbuf } | [^' ' '\n' '\r' '\r']+ { hash_add ( Lexing.lexeme lexbuf ); read lexbuf } | eof { Hashtbl.iter ( fun k v -> Printf.printf "%4d\t%s\n" !v k ) hash }
{ let _ = read_rec ( Lexing.from_channel stdin ) 0 }
---
There are a few little extra details worth mentioning.
1) The 2nd OCAML program which I haven't included uses the sort of string buffering + stream approach which you can find in the genlex.ml code. This second approach is rather longer, but not much slower. 2) A longer C++ solution using #include <hash_map> was also much slower than either of the OCAML solutions. 3) The speed of the Perl program is irrelevant, since no hashing algorithm was being used.
-- Albert Tobias Moth at work: research scientist at the National Physical Laboratory tm1@npl.co.uk +44 (0)181 943 6016 at home: philosopher, dish washer, diarist, geek toby@heynonnyno.demon.co.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:18 MET