Java – Fastest way to determine if an integer’s square root is an integer

javamathoptimizationperfect-square

I'm looking for the fastest way to determine if a long value is a perfect square (i.e. its square root is another integer):

I've done it the easy way, by using the built-in Math.sqrt()
function, but I'm wondering if there is a way to do it faster by
restricting yourself to integer-only domain.
Maintaining a lookup table is impractical (since there are about
2^31.5 integers whose square is less than 2⁶³).

Here is the very simple and straightforward way I'm doing it now:

public final static boolean isPerfectSquare(long n)
{
  if (n < 0)
    return false;

  long tst = (long)(Math.sqrt(n) + 0.5);
  return tst*tst == n;
}

_{Note: I'm using this function in many Project Euler problems. So no one else will ever have to maintain this code. And this kind of micro-optimization could actually make a difference, since part of the challenge is to do every algorithm in less than a minute, and this function will need to be called millions of times in some problems.}

I've tried the different solutions to the problem:

After exhaustive testing, I found that adding 0.5 to the result of Math.sqrt() is not necessary, at least not on my machine.
The fast inverse square root was faster, but it gave incorrect results for n >= 410881. However, as suggested by BobbyShaftoe, we can use the FISR hack for n < 410881.
Newton's method was a good bit slower than Math.sqrt(). This is probably because Math.sqrt() uses something similar to Newton's Method, but implemented in the hardware so it's much faster than in Java. Also, Newton's Method still required use of doubles.
A modified Newton's method, which used a few tricks so that only integer math was involved, required some hacks to avoid overflow (I want this function to work with all positive 64-bit signed integers), and it was still slower than Math.sqrt().
Binary chop was even slower. This makes sense because the binary chop will on average require 16 passes to find the square root of a 64-bit number.
According to John's tests, using or statements is faster in C++ than using a switch, but in Java and C# there appears to be no difference between or and switch.
I also tried making a lookup table (as a private static array of 64 boolean values). Then instead of either switch or or statement, I would just say if(lookup[(int)(n&0x3F)]) { test } else return false;. To my surprise, this was (just slightly) slower. This is because array bounds are checked in Java.

Best Answer

I figured out a method that works ~35% faster than your 6bits+Carmack+sqrt code, at least with my CPU (x86) and programming language (C/C++). Your results may vary, especially because I don't know how the Java factor will play out.

My approach is threefold:

First, filter out obvious answers. This includes negative numbers and looking at the last 4 bits. (I found looking at the last six didn't help.) I also answer yes for 0. (In reading the code below, note that my input is int64 x.)
```
if( x < 0 || (x&2) || ((x & 7) == 5) || ((x & 11) == 8) )
    return false;
if( x == 0 )
    return true;
```
Next, check if it's a square modulo 255 = 3 * 5 * 17. Because that's a product of three distinct primes, only about 1/8 of the residues mod 255 are squares. However, in my experience, calling the modulo operator (%) costs more than the benefit one gets, so I use bit tricks involving 255 = 2^8-1 to compute the residue. (For better or worse, I am not using the trick of reading individual bytes out of a word, only bitwise-and and shifts.)
```
int64 y = x;
y = (y & 4294967295LL) + (y >> 32); 
y = (y & 65535) + (y >> 16);
y = (y & 255) + ((y >> 8) & 255) + (y >> 16);
// At this point, y is between 0 and 511.  More code can reduce it farther.
```
To actually check if the residue is a square, I look up the answer in a precomputed table.
```
if( bad255[y] )
    return false;
// However, I just use a table of size 512
```
Finally, try to compute the square root using a method similar to Hensel's lemma. (I don't think it's applicable directly, but it works with some modifications.) Before doing that, I divide out all powers of 2 with a binary search:
```
if((x & 4294967295LL) == 0)
    x >>= 32;
if((x & 65535) == 0)
    x >>= 16;
if((x & 255) == 0)
    x >>= 8;
if((x & 15) == 0)
    x >>= 4;
if((x & 3) == 0)
    x >>= 2;
```
At this point, for our number to be a square, it must be 1 mod 8.
```
if((x & 7) != 1)
    return false;
```
The basic structure of Hensel's lemma is the following. (Note: untested code; if it doesn't work, try t=2 or 8.)
```
int64 t = 4, r = 1;
t <<= 1; r += ((x - r * r) & t) >> 1;
t <<= 1; r += ((x - r * r) & t) >> 1;
t <<= 1; r += ((x - r * r) & t) >> 1;
// Repeat until t is 2^33 or so.  Use a loop if you want.
```
The idea is that at each iteration, you add one bit onto r, the "current" square root of x; each square root is accurate modulo a larger and larger power of 2, namely t/2. At the end, r and t/2-r will be square roots of x modulo t/2. (Note that if r is a square root of x, then so is -r. This is true even modulo numbers, but beware, modulo some numbers, things can have even more than 2 square roots; notably, this includes powers of 2.) Because our actual square root is less than 2^32, at that point we can actually just check if r or t/2-r are real square roots. In my actual code, I use the following modified loop:
```
int64 r, t, z;
r = start[(x >> 3) & 1023];
do {
    z = x - r * r;
    if( z == 0 )
        return true;
    if( z < 0 )
        return false;
    t = z & (-z);
    r += (z & t) >> 1;
    if( r > (t >> 1) )
        r = t - r;
} while( t <= (1LL << 33) );
```
The speedup here is obtained in three ways: precomputed start value (equivalent to ~10 iterations of the loop), earlier exit of the loop, and skipping some t values. For the last part, I look at z = r - x * x, and set t to be the largest power of 2 dividing z with a bit trick. This allows me to skip t values that wouldn't have affected the value of r anyway. The precomputed start value in my case picks out the "smallest positive" square root modulo 8192.

Even if this code doesn't work faster for you, I hope you enjoy some of the ideas it contains. Complete, tested code follows, including the precomputed tables.

typedef signed long long int int64;

int start[1024] =
{1,3,1769,5,1937,1741,7,1451,479,157,9,91,945,659,1817,11,
1983,707,1321,1211,1071,13,1479,405,415,1501,1609,741,15,339,1703,203,
129,1411,873,1669,17,1715,1145,1835,351,1251,887,1573,975,19,1127,395,
1855,1981,425,453,1105,653,327,21,287,93,713,1691,1935,301,551,587,
257,1277,23,763,1903,1075,1799,1877,223,1437,1783,859,1201,621,25,779,
1727,573,471,1979,815,1293,825,363,159,1315,183,27,241,941,601,971,
385,131,919,901,273,435,647,1493,95,29,1417,805,719,1261,1177,1163,
1599,835,1367,315,1361,1933,1977,747,31,1373,1079,1637,1679,1581,1753,1355,
513,1539,1815,1531,1647,205,505,1109,33,1379,521,1627,1457,1901,1767,1547,
1471,1853,1833,1349,559,1523,967,1131,97,35,1975,795,497,1875,1191,1739,
641,1149,1385,133,529,845,1657,725,161,1309,375,37,463,1555,615,1931,
1343,445,937,1083,1617,883,185,1515,225,1443,1225,869,1423,1235,39,1973,
769,259,489,1797,1391,1485,1287,341,289,99,1271,1701,1713,915,537,1781,
1215,963,41,581,303,243,1337,1899,353,1245,329,1563,753,595,1113,1589,
897,1667,407,635,785,1971,135,43,417,1507,1929,731,207,275,1689,1397,
1087,1725,855,1851,1873,397,1607,1813,481,163,567,101,1167,45,1831,1205,
1025,1021,1303,1029,1135,1331,1017,427,545,1181,1033,933,1969,365,1255,1013,
959,317,1751,187,47,1037,455,1429,609,1571,1463,1765,1009,685,679,821,
1153,387,1897,1403,1041,691,1927,811,673,227,137,1499,49,1005,103,629,
831,1091,1449,1477,1967,1677,697,1045,737,1117,1737,667,911,1325,473,437,
1281,1795,1001,261,879,51,775,1195,801,1635,759,165,1871,1645,1049,245,
703,1597,553,955,209,1779,1849,661,865,291,841,997,1265,1965,1625,53,
1409,893,105,1925,1297,589,377,1579,929,1053,1655,1829,305,1811,1895,139,
575,189,343,709,1711,1139,1095,277,993,1699,55,1435,655,1491,1319,331,
1537,515,791,507,623,1229,1529,1963,1057,355,1545,603,1615,1171,743,523,
447,1219,1239,1723,465,499,57,107,1121,989,951,229,1521,851,167,715,
1665,1923,1687,1157,1553,1869,1415,1749,1185,1763,649,1061,561,531,409,907,
319,1469,1961,59,1455,141,1209,491,1249,419,1847,1893,399,211,985,1099,
1793,765,1513,1275,367,1587,263,1365,1313,925,247,1371,1359,109,1561,1291,
191,61,1065,1605,721,781,1735,875,1377,1827,1353,539,1777,429,1959,1483,
1921,643,617,389,1809,947,889,981,1441,483,1143,293,817,749,1383,1675,
63,1347,169,827,1199,1421,583,1259,1505,861,457,1125,143,1069,807,1867,
2047,2045,279,2043,111,307,2041,597,1569,1891,2039,1957,1103,1389,231,2037,
65,1341,727,837,977,2035,569,1643,1633,547,439,1307,2033,1709,345,1845,
1919,637,1175,379,2031,333,903,213,1697,797,1161,475,1073,2029,921,1653,
193,67,1623,1595,943,1395,1721,2027,1761,1955,1335,357,113,1747,1497,1461,
1791,771,2025,1285,145,973,249,171,1825,611,265,1189,847,1427,2023,1269,
321,1475,1577,69,1233,755,1223,1685,1889,733,1865,2021,1807,1107,1447,1077,
1663,1917,1129,1147,1775,1613,1401,555,1953,2019,631,1243,1329,787,871,885,
449,1213,681,1733,687,115,71,1301,2017,675,969,411,369,467,295,693,
1535,509,233,517,401,1843,1543,939,2015,669,1527,421,591,147,281,501,
577,195,215,699,1489,525,1081,917,1951,2013,73,1253,1551,173,857,309,
1407,899,663,1915,1519,1203,391,1323,1887,739,1673,2011,1585,493,1433,117,
705,1603,1111,965,431,1165,1863,533,1823,605,823,1179,625,813,2009,75,
1279,1789,1559,251,657,563,761,1707,1759,1949,777,347,335,1133,1511,267,
833,1085,2007,1467,1745,1805,711,149,1695,803,1719,485,1295,1453,935,459,
1151,381,1641,1413,1263,77,1913,2005,1631,541,119,1317,1841,1773,359,651,
961,323,1193,197,175,1651,441,235,1567,1885,1481,1947,881,2003,217,843,
1023,1027,745,1019,913,717,1031,1621,1503,867,1015,1115,79,1683,793,1035,
1089,1731,297,1861,2001,1011,1593,619,1439,477,585,283,1039,1363,1369,1227,
895,1661,151,645,1007,1357,121,1237,1375,1821,1911,549,1999,1043,1945,1419,
1217,957,599,571,81,371,1351,1003,1311,931,311,1381,1137,723,1575,1611,
767,253,1047,1787,1169,1997,1273,853,1247,413,1289,1883,177,403,999,1803,
1345,451,1495,1093,1839,269,199,1387,1183,1757,1207,1051,783,83,423,1995,
639,1155,1943,123,751,1459,1671,469,1119,995,393,219,1743,237,153,1909,
1473,1859,1705,1339,337,909,953,1771,1055,349,1993,613,1393,557,729,1717,
511,1533,1257,1541,1425,819,519,85,991,1693,503,1445,433,877,1305,1525,
1601,829,809,325,1583,1549,1991,1941,927,1059,1097,1819,527,1197,1881,1333,
383,125,361,891,495,179,633,299,863,285,1399,987,1487,1517,1639,1141,
1729,579,87,1989,593,1907,839,1557,799,1629,201,155,1649,1837,1063,949,
255,1283,535,773,1681,461,1785,683,735,1123,1801,677,689,1939,487,757,
1857,1987,983,443,1327,1267,313,1173,671,221,695,1509,271,1619,89,565,
127,1405,1431,1659,239,1101,1159,1067,607,1565,905,1755,1231,1299,665,373,
1985,701,1879,1221,849,627,1465,789,543,1187,1591,923,1905,979,1241,181};

bool bad255[512] =
{0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,
 1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,
 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,
 1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,
 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,
 1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,
 1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,
 1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
 0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,
 1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,
 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,
 1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,
 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,
 1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,
 1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,
 1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
 0,0};

inline bool square( int64 x ) {
    // Quickfail
    if( x < 0 || (x&2) || ((x & 7) == 5) || ((x & 11) == 8) )
        return false;
    if( x == 0 )
        return true;

    // Check mod 255 = 3 * 5 * 17, for fun
    int64 y = x;
    y = (y & 4294967295LL) + (y >> 32);
    y = (y & 65535) + (y >> 16);
    y = (y & 255) + ((y >> 8) & 255) + (y >> 16);
    if( bad255[y] )
        return false;

    // Divide out powers of 4 using binary search
    if((x & 4294967295LL) == 0)
        x >>= 32;
    if((x & 65535) == 0)
        x >>= 16;
    if((x & 255) == 0)
        x >>= 8;
    if((x & 15) == 0)
        x >>= 4;
    if((x & 3) == 0)
        x >>= 2;

    if((x & 7) != 1)
        return false;

    // Compute sqrt using something like Hensel's lemma
    int64 r, t, z;
    r = start[(x >> 3) & 1023];
    do {
        z = x - r * r;
        if( z == 0 )
            return true;
        if( z < 0 )
            return false;
        t = z & (-z);
        r += (z & t) >> 1;
        if( r > (t  >> 1) )
            r = t - r;
    } while( t <= (1LL << 33) );

    return false;
}

Related Solutions

Java – What are the effects of exceptions on performance in Java

It depends how exceptions are implemented. The simplest way is using setjmp and longjmp. That means all registers of the CPU are written to the stack (which already takes some time) and possibly some other data needs to be created... all this already happens in the try statement. The throw statement needs to unwind the stack and restore the values of all registers (and possible other values in the VM). So try and throw are equally slow, and that is pretty slow, however if no exception is thrown, exiting the try block takes no time whatsoever in most cases (as everything is put on the stack which cleans up automatically if the method exists).

Sun and others recognized, that this is possibly suboptimal and of course VMs get faster and faster over the time. There is another way to implement exceptions, which makes try itself lightning fast (actually nothing happens for try at all in general - everything that needs to happen is already done when the class is loaded by the VM) and it makes throw not quite as slow. I don't know which JVM uses this new, better technique...

...but are you writing in Java so your code later on only runs on one JVM on one specific system? Since if it may ever run on any other platform or any other JVM version (possibly of any other vendor), who says they also use the fast implementation? The fast one is more complicated than the slow one and not easily possible on all systems. You want to stay portable? Then don't rely on exceptions being fast.

It also makes a big difference what you do within a try block. If you open a try block and never call any method from within this try block, the try block will be ultra fast, as the JIT can then actually treat a throw like a simple goto. It neither needs to save stack-state nor does it need to unwind the stack if an exception is thrown (it only needs to jump to the catch handlers). However, this is not what you usually do. Usually you open a try block and then call a method that might throw an exception, right? And even if you just use the try block within your method, what kind of method will this be, that does not call any other method? Will it just calculate a number? Then what for do you need exceptions? There are much more elegant ways to regulate program flow. For pretty much anything else but simple math, you will have to call an external method and this already destroys the advantage of a local try block.

See the following test code:

public class Test {
    int value;


    public int getValue() {
        return value;
    }

    public void reset() {
        value = 0;
    }

    // Calculates without exception
    public void method1(int i) {
        value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
        // Will never be true
        if ((i & 0xFFFFFFF) == 1000000000) {
            System.out.println("You'll never see this!");
        }
    }

    // Could in theory throw one, but never will
    public void method2(int i) throws Exception {
        value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
        // Will never be true
        if ((i & 0xFFFFFFF) == 1000000000) {
            throw new Exception();
        }
    }

    // This one will regularly throw one
    public void method3(int i) throws Exception {
        value = ((value + i) / i) << 1;
        // i & 1 is equally fast to calculate as i & 0xFFFFFFF; it is both
        // an AND operation between two integers. The size of the number plays
        // no role. AND on 32 BIT always ANDs all 32 bits
        if ((i & 0x1) == 1) {
            throw new Exception();
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int i;
        long l;
        Test t = new Test();

        l = System.currentTimeMillis();
        t.reset();
        for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
            t.method1(i);
        }
        l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
        System.out.println(
            "method1 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue()
        );

        l = System.currentTimeMillis();
        t.reset();
        for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
            try {
                t.method2(i);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                System.out.println("You'll never see this!");
            }
        }
        l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
        System.out.println(
            "method2 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue()
        );

        l = System.currentTimeMillis();
        t.reset();
        for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++) {
            try {
                t.method3(i);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                // Do nothing here, as we will get here
            }
        }
        l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
        System.out.println(
            "method3 took " + l + " ms, result was " + t.getValue()
        );
    }
}

Result:

method1 took 972 ms, result was 2
method2 took 1003 ms, result was 2
method3 took 66716 ms, result was 2

The slowdown from the try block is too small to rule out confounding factors such as background processes. But the catch block killed everything and made it 66 times slower!

As I said, the result will not be that bad if you put try/catch and throw all within the same method (method3), but this is a special JIT optimization I would not rely upon. And even when using this optimization, the throw is still pretty slow. So I don't know what you are trying to do here, but there is definitely a better way of doing it than using try/catch/throw.

Java – How to nicely format floating numbers to string without unnecessary decimal 0’s

new DecimalFormat("#.##").format(1.199); //"1.2"

As pointed in the comments, this is not the right answer to the original question.
That said, it is a very useful way to format numbers without unnecessary trailing zeros.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Java – What are the effects of exceptions on performance in Java

Java – How to nicely format floating numbers to string without unnecessary decimal 0’s

Related Topic