this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
7 points (76.9% liked)
Advent Of Code
981 readers
21 users here now
An unofficial home for the advent of code community on programming.dev!
Advent of Code is an annual Advent calendar of small programming puzzles for a variety of skill sets and skill levels that can be solved in any programming language you like.
AoC 2024
Solution Threads
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
23 | 24 | 25 |
Rules/Guidelines
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep all content related to advent of code in some way
- If what youre posting relates to a day, put in brackets the year and then day number in front of the post title (e.g. [2024 Day 10])
- When an event is running, keep solutions in the solution megathread to avoid the community getting spammed with posts
Relevant Communities
Relevant Links
Credits
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
console.log('Hello World')
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Rust
Pretty similar to the other rust answer. This definitely requires
of some form, but when done right, is very performant. 122ms for both.
spoiler
memoizationI don't know much about Rust but I assume the
HashMap<String, i64>
requires hashing on insertion and lookup, right? I realized that, for every design, all the strings you'll see are substrings of that design from different starting positions, so I made my lookup tableint pos -> int count
. The table is reset after every design.That does mean that if two or more strings end with the same substring, you'd recalculate those substrings? Would be a faster lookup cost though, clever.
My code ran in 120ms, so its pretty damn fast as is, especially compared to the non-memoised version
edit: Tried the array of lengths method, shaved about 20ms off. Not bad, but probably not my main issue either
I hadn't really considered that, but yes. I'm inclined to think that replacing hash table lookups with plain array indexing (which this allows) outweighs that downside but I'm not sure. Indeed 120ms is pretty damn fast!
It saved me 20ms, and given your using C, saved you dealing with uthash or similar, so probably worth it.
The hashmap is probably a more generic solution though
Certainly more generic and less prone to user error too. Indeed dealing with hash maps or any advanced data structure is a pain with C, this is where generics or templates really shine, especially if you have control over lifetime aspects as you do with C++ or Rust (e.g. moves, lvalue references, constness, etc).