[HN Gopher] Random Number Generators for C++ Performance Tested ...
___________________________________________________________________
Random Number Generators for C++ Performance Tested (2019)
Author : optimalsolver
Score : 28 points
Date : 2021-07-26 09:15 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (thompsonsed.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (thompsonsed.co.uk)
| _448 wrote:
| Reading the title I thought the comparison was between standard
| library random generators :)
|
| How does this compare to the standard library, for e.g. MT?
|
| Edit: Okay, spoke too soon! In the article base means the
| standard library.
| iandinwoodie wrote:
| With no intent to be pedantic: wouldn't benchmarked or profiled,
| instead of performance tested, be a more accurate description of
| the performance evaluation performed by the author?
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| In which algorithms is the random number generation the
| bottleneck?
| fanf2 wrote:
| I was recently doing some randomised testing, and for some
| reason the software I was working with chose to use the
| getrandom() system call for every random number. This
| completely swamped the performance measurement I was trying to
| make, more than half the time wasted on random numbers.
|
| I switched to PCG with Lemire's nearly divisionless modular
| reduction, and the performance numbers were sensible again.
| berkut wrote:
| Monte Carlo simulations - i.e. pathtracing...
|
| Generating well distributed random numbers with low overhead is
| quire important for that.
|
| It's not _the_ bottleneck, but it is very important.
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| In path tracing you don't want random numbers but low
| discrepancy sequences
| berkut wrote:
| And some of the ways (ignoring things like Sobol and
| Halton) of generating those are using random numbers :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-27 23:01 UTC)