Leo Brown - 12 days ago 4x

Ruby Question

It seems like #sum is faster than #reduce for long arrays, and they are basically the same for short ones.

`def reduce_t(s,f)`

start = Time.now

puts (s..f).reduce(:+) #Printing the result just to make sure something is happening.

finish = Time.now

puts finish - start

end

def sum_t(s,f)

start = Time.now

puts (s..f).sum

finish = Time.now

puts finish - start

end

irb(main):078:0> sum_t(1,10); reduce_t(1,10)

55

0.000445

55

0.000195

=> nil

irb(main):079:0> sum_t(1,1000000); reduce_t(1,1000000)

500000500000

8.1e-05

500000500000

0.101487

=> nil

Are there considerations other than speed? Are there any situations when it would be better to use #reduce instead of #sum to accomplish the same end, a simple sum?

mu is too short rightly pointed out that I should do numerous iterations before drawing conclusions about timing results. I didn't use

`Benchmark`

`def sum_reduce_t(s,f)`

time_reduce = 0

time_sum = 0

reduce_faster = 0

sum_faster = 0

30.times do

start_reduce = Time.now

(s..f).reduce(:+)

finish_reduce = Time.now

time_reduce += (finish_reduce - start_reduce)

start_sum = Time.now

(s..f).sum

finish_sum = Time.now

time_sum += (finish_sum - start_sum)

if time_sum > time_reduce

reduce_faster += 1

else

sum_faster += 1

end

end

puts "Total time (s) spent on reduce: #{time_reduce}"

puts "Total time (s) spent on sum: #{time_sum}"

puts "Number of times reduce is faster: #{reduce_faster}"

puts "Number of times sum is faster: #{sum_faster}"

end

irb(main):205:0> sum_reduce_t(1,10)

Total time (s) spent on reduce: 0.00023900000000000004

Total time (s) spent on sum: 0.00015400000000000003

Number of times reduce is faster: 0

Number of times sum is faster: 30

=> nil

irb(main):206:0> sum_reduce_t(1,100)

Total time (s) spent on reduce: 0.0011480000000000004

Total time (s) spent on sum: 0.00024999999999999995

Number of times reduce is faster: 0

Number of times sum is faster: 30

=> nil

irb(main):207:0> sum_reduce_t(1,1000)

Total time (s) spent on reduce: 0.004804000000000001

Total time (s) spent on sum: 0.00019899999999999996

Number of times reduce is faster: 0

Number of times sum is faster: 30

=> nil

irb(main):208:0> sum_reduce_t(1,10000)

Total time (s) spent on reduce: 0.031862

Total time (s) spent on sum: 0.00010299999999999996

Number of times reduce is faster: 0

Number of times sum is faster: 30

=> nil

irb(main):209:0> sum_reduce_t(1,100000)

Total time (s) spent on reduce: 0.286317

Total time (s) spent on sum: 0.00013199999999999998

Number of times reduce is faster: 0

Number of times sum is faster: 30

=> nil

irb(main):210:0> sum_reduce_t(1,1000000)

Total time (s) spent on reduce: 2.7116779999999996

Total time (s) spent on sum: 0.00021200000000000008

Number of times reduce is faster: 0

Number of times sum is faster: 30

=> nil

My question remains: are there ever times when it makes sense to use #reduce instead of #sum?

Answer

One way that the behaviour and result of using `sum`

differ from `inject &:+`

is when you are summing floating point values.

If you add a large floating point value to a small one, often the result is just the same as the larger one:

```
> 99999999999999.98 + 0.001
=> 99999999999999.98
```

This can lead to errors when adding arrays of floats, as the smaller values are effectively lost, even if there is a lot of them.

For example:

```
> a = [99999999999999.98, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001]
=> [99999999999999.98, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001]
> a.inject(&:+)
=> 99999999999999.98
```

In this example, you could add `0.001`

as often as you want, it would never change the value of the result.

Ruby’s implementation of `sum`

uses the Kahan summation algorithm when summing floats to reduce this error:

```
> a.sum
=> 100000000000000.0
```

(Note the result here, you might be expecting something ending in `.99`

as there are 10 `0.001`

in the array. This is just normal floating point behaviour, perhaps I should have tried to find a better example. The important point is that the sum does increase as you add lots of small values, which doesn’t happen with `inject &:+`

.)

Source (Stackoverflow)

Comments