Re^4: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation?

And an Inline::C implementation of the algorithm is 20x faster still:

#! perl -slw
use strict;
use Inline C => Config => BUILD_NOISY => 1;
use Inline C => <<'END_C',  NAME => '_luhn', CLEAN_AFTER_BUILD =>0;

int c_luhn( char *s ) {
    int i, total = 0;

    for( i=0; i < 15; ++i ) {
        int d = s[ i ] - '0';
        if( !( i  & 1 ) ) {
            d *= 2;
            if( d > 9 ) d -= 9;
        }
        total += d;
    }
    total *= 9;
    return total % 10;
}

END_C
use Time::HiRes qw[ time ];

my @samples = qw[
    4011350000000008
    4011350000000016
    4011350000000024
    4011350000000032
    4011350000000040
    4011350000000057
    4011350000000065
    4011350000000073
    4011350000000081
    4011350000000099
];

sub luhn {
    use integer;
    my $s = $_[ 0 ];
    my $total = 0;
    for my $i ( 0 .. 14 ) {
        my $d = substr( $s, $i, 1 );
        unless( $i & 1 ) {
            $d *= 2;
            $d -= 9 if $d > 9;
        }
        $total += $d;
    }
    $total *= 9;
    return chop $total;
}

for ( @samples ) {
    print "$_: ", luhn( substr $_, 0, 15 );
}

my $start = time;
for ( 401135000000000..401135000999999 ) {
    my $chk = luhn( $_ );
}
printf "Took %.9f seconds.\n", time() - $start;

for ( @samples ) {
    print "$_: ", c_luhn( $_ );
}

my $start = time;
for ( 401135000000000..401135000999999 ) {
    my $chk = c_luhn( $_ );
}
printf "Took %.9f seconds.\n", time() - $start;
[download]

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit

Comment on Re^4: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? by kschwab (Vicar) on Dec 01, 2018 at 15:24 UTC
That's funny, I was converting yours to Inline::C at the same time. `int cd2(char number) { int i, d, total; total=0; for (i = 0; i<15; i++) { d=number[i]-48; if (!(i & 1)) { d =2; if (d > 9) {d-=9;} } total+=d; } total *=9; return total % 10; }` [download] And, it is a little faster, appreciate it. $perl ./script Benchmark: timing 200 iterations of Inline::C (BrowserUK-His Conversion), Inline::C (BrowserUK-My Conversion), Inline::C (orig)... Inline::C (BrowserUK-His Conversion): 2 wallclock secs ( 2.54 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.54 CPU) @ 78.74/s (n=200) Inline::C (BrowserUK-My Conversion): 3 wallclock secs ( 2.51 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.51 CPU) @ 79.68/s (n=200) Inline::C (orig): 3 wallclock secs ( 2.97 usr + 0.00 sys = 2.97 CPU) @ 67.34/s (n=200)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2018 at 20:19 UTC
Unrolling the loop and using Anonymonk's lookup trick extracts another 5%: `int l[] = { 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 }; int c_luhn2( char s ) { int total = 0; total += l[ s[ 0] - '0' ]; total += s[ 1] - '0'; total += l[ s[ 2] - '0' ]; total += s[ 3] - '0'; total += l[ s[ 4] - '0' ]; total += s[ 5] - '0'; total += l[ s[ 6] - '0' ]; total += s[ 7] - '0'; total += l[ s[ 8] - '0' ]; total += s[ 9] - '0'; total += l[ s[10] - '0' ]; total += s[11] - '0'; total += l[ s[12] - '0' ]; total += s[13] - '0'; total += l[ s[14] - '0' ]; total = 9; return total % 10; }` [download] I doubt there is much fat left in there :) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity. In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit	[reply] [d/l]
Re^7: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? by tybalt89 (Monsignor) on Dec 02, 2018 at 05:16 UTC
Looks fat to me ( just kidding :) Is this any faster? Or does the compiler optimize away the differences? `int l[] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 }; int c_luhn2( char s ) { return (( l[ (int)s[ 0] ] + s[ 1] + l[ (int)s[ 2] ] + s[ 3] + l[ (int)s[ 4] ] + s[ 5] + l[ (int)s[ 6] ] + s[ 7] + l[ (int)s[ 8] ] + s[ 9] + l[ (int)s[10] ] + s[11] + l[ (int)s[12] ] + s[13] + l[ (int)s[14] ] - 7 '0' ) * 9) % 10; }` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^8: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 02, 2018 at 07:45 UTC
Re^9: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? by Corion (Patriarch) on Dec 02, 2018 at 08:06 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^8: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? (Ignore this!) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 02, 2018 at 15:09 UTC
Re^9: Faster Luhn Check Digit Calculation? by kschwab (Vicar) on Dec 02, 2018 at 21:55 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks