views:

3081

answers:

15

Is there a performance hit if we use loop instead of recursion or vice versa in algorithms where both can serve the same purpose? Eg : Check if given string is palindrome. I have seen many programmers using recursion as a means to show off when a simple iteration algorithm can fit the bill. Does the compiler play a vital role in deciding what to use?

+1  A: 

It depends on the language. In java you should use loops. Functional languages optimize recursion. S

A: 

With recursion you may get a StackOverflow exception if the recursive method is called lots of times like this:

int i = 0;

void Recursive()
{
    ++i; // The value here will show you how deeper in stack you can go
    Recursive();
}
huseyint
+2  A: 

Using recursion, you're incurring the cost of a function call with each "iteration", whereas with a loop, the only thing you usually pay is an increment/decrement. So, if the code for the loop isn't much more complicated than the code for the recursive solution, loop will usually be superior to recursion.

MovEaxEsp
Actually, compiled Scala tail-recursive function boil down to a loop in the bytecode, if you care to look at them (recommended). No function call overhead. Secondly, tail-recursive functions have the advantage of not requiring mutable variables/side effects or explicit loops, making correctness far easier to prove.
Ben Hardy
+1  A: 

I would think in (non tail) recursion there would be a performance hit for allocating a new stack etc every time the function is called (dependent on language of course).

metadave
+1  A: 

I would say there's a performance gain in using loops instead of recursion. Recursion allways implies a function/method call, while in a loop you can optimize to avoid it. And a call is guaranteed to be costly in any language, because it would necessarily involve a jump (which has its own cost, clears the processor pipeline, etc) and some pushes and pops in the stack.

Fabio Ceconello
+8  A: 

Recursion is more costly in memory, as each recursive call generally requires a memory address to be pushed to the stack - so that later the program could return to that point.

Still, there are many cases in which recursion is a lot more natural and readable than loops - like when working with trees. In these cases I would recommend sticking to recursion.

Doron Yaacoby
Unless of course your compiler optimizes tail calls like Scala.
Ben Hardy
+8  A: 

Typically, one would expect the performance penalty to lie in the other direction. Recursive calls can lead to the construction of extra stack frames; the penalty for this varies. Also, in some languages like Python (more correctly, in some implementations of some languages...), you can run into stack limits rather easily for tasks you might specify recursively, such as finding the maximum value in a tree data structure. In these cases, you really want to stick with loops.

Writing good recursive functions can reduce the performance penalty somewhat, assuming you have a compiler that optimizes tail recursions, etc. (Also double check to make sure that the function really is tail recursive---it's one of those things that many people make mistakes on.)

Apart from "edge" cases (high performance computing, very large recursion depth, etc.), it's preferable to adopt the approach that most clearly expresses your intent, is well-designed, and is maintainable. Optimize only after identifying a need.

zweiterlinde
+1  A: 

it depends on "recursion depth". it depends on how much the function call overhead will influence the total execution time.

For example, calculating the classical factorial in a recursive way is very inefficient due to: - risk of data overflowing - risk of stack overflowing - function call overhead occupy 80% of execution time

while developing a min-max algorithm for position analysis in the game of chess that will analyze subsequent N moves can be implemented in recursion over the "analysis depth" (as I'm doing ^_^)

ugasoft
+28  A: 

It is possible that recursion will be more expensive, depending on if the recursive function is tail recursive (last line is recursive call). Tail recursion should be recognized by the compiler and optimized to its iterative counterpart (while maintaining the concise, clear implementation you have in your code).

I would write the algorithm in the way that makes the most sense and is the most clear for the poor sucker (be it yourself or someone else) that has to maintain the code in a few months or years. If you run into performance issues, then profile your code, and then and only then look into optimizing by moving over to an iterative implementation. You may want to look into memoization and dynamic programming.

Paul Osborne
Algorithms whose correctness can be proved by induction tend to write themselves naturally in recursive form. Coupled with the fact that tail recursion is optimized by compilers, you end up seeing more algorithms expressed recursively.
binil
+2  A: 

Your performance deteriorates when using recursion because calling a method, in any language, implies a lot of preparation: the calling code posts a return address, call parameters, some other context information such as processor registers might be saved somewhere, and at return time the called method posts a return value which is then retrieved by the caller, and any context information that was previously saved will be restored. the performance diff between an iterative and a recursive approach lies in the time these operations take.

From an implementation point of view, you really start noticing the difference when the time it takes to handle the calling context is comparable to the time it takes for your method to execute. If your recursive method takes longer to execute then the calling context management part, go the recursive way as the code is generally more readable and easy to understand and you won't notice the performance loss. Otherwise go iterative for efficiency reasons.

entzik
+4  A: 

I believe tail recursion in java is not currently optimized. The details are sprinkled throughout this discussion on LtU and the associated links. It may be a feature in the upcoming version 7, but apparently it presents certain difficulties when combined with Stack Inspection since certain frames would be missing. Stack Inspection has been used to implement their fine-grained security model since Java 2.

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1333

There are JVM's for Java that optimize tail-recursion.http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-diag8.html
Liran Orevi
+19  A: 

Loops may achieve a performance gain for your computer. Recursion may achieve a performance gain for your programmer. Choose which is more important in your situation!

Leigh Caldwell
ha ha..nice one..I liked that.
Omnipotent
@LeighCaldwell: I think that sums up my thinking exactly. Pity Omnipotent didn't upmod. I certainly have. :)
_ande_turner_
There's the rub!
Ben Hardy
+1  A: 

Mike is correct. Tail recursion is not optimized out by the Java compiler or the JVM. You will always get a stack overflow with something like this:

int count(int i) {
  return i >= 100000000 ? i : count(i+1);
}
noah
Unless you write it in Scala ;-)
Ben Hardy
A: 

As far as I know, Perl does not optimize tail-recursive calls, but you can fake it.

sub f{
  my($l,$r) = @_;

  if( $l >= $r ){
    return $l;
  } else {

    # return f( $l+1, $r );

    @_ = ( $l+1, $r );
    goto &f;

  }
}

When first called it will allocate space on the stack. Then it will change its arguments, and restart the subroutine, without adding anything more to the stack. It will therefore pretend that it never called its self, changing it into an iterative process.

Note that there is no "my @_;" or "local @_;", if you did it would no longer work.

Brad Gilbert
+3  A: 

Recursion and iteration depends on the business logic that you want to implement, though in most of the cases it can be used interchangeably. Most developers go for recursion because it is easier to understand.

Warrior