• 2 Posts
  • 61 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2023

help-circle











  • Rust

    I simply check each starting position individually for Part 2, I don’t know if there are more clever solutions. Initially that approach ran in 180ms which is a lot more than any of the previous puzzles needed, so I tried if I could optimize it.

    Initially I was using two hash sets, one for counting unique energized fields, and one for detecting cycles which also included the direction in the hash. Going from the default rust hasher to FxHash sped it up to 100ms. Seeing that, I thought that this point could be further improved upon, and ended up replacing both hash sets with boolean arrays, since their size is neatly bounded by the input field size. Now it runs in merely 30ms, meaning a 6x speedup just by getting rid of the hashing.


  • You can create an array filled with all the same values in Rust, but only if all values have the same memory representation because they will be copied. That just doesn’t work with Vec’s, because they must all have their own unique pointer. And to have uninitialized values at first (think NULL-pointers for every Vec) while creating each Vec, something like this is apparently needed.

    The appropriate way would certainly have been to store the map as a Vec> instead of an array, but I just wanted to see if could.





  • I don’t think there are many significant optimizations with regards to reducing the search tree. It took me long enough to get behind it, but the “solution” (not saying there aren’t other ways) to part 2 is to not calculate anything more than once. Instead put partial solutions in a dict indexed by the current state and use that cached value if you need it again.

    It seems like you are actually constructing all rows with replaced ?. This won’t be viable for part 2, your memory usage will explode. I have a recursive function that calls itself twice whenever a ? is encountered, once assuming it’s a ., and once a #.


  • Rust

    Took me way too long, but I’m happy with my solution now. I spent probably half an hour looking at my naive backtracking program churning away unsuccessfully before I thought of dynamic programming, meaning caching all intermediate results in a hashtable under their current state. The state is just the index into the spring array and the index into the range array, meaning there really can’t be too many different entries. Doing so worked very well, solving part 2 in 4ms.

    Adding the caching required me to switch from a loop to a recursive function, which turned out way easier. Why did no one tell me to just go recursive from the start?