Smartly Avoiding Silence and Smartass Responses

Fastest way to determine if an integer's square root is an integer


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 231.5 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.

794

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.
...

What does "dereferencing" a pointer mean?


Please include an example with the explanation.

Reviewing the basic terminology
It's usually good enough - unless you're programming assembly - to envisage a pointer containing a numeric memory address, with 1 referring to the second byte in the process's memory, 2 the third, 3 the fourth and so on....

What happened to 0 and the first byte? Well, we'll get to that later - see null pointers below.
For a more accurate definition of what pointers store, and how memory and addresses relate, see "More about memory addresses, and why you probably don't need to know" at the end of this answer.
When you want to access the data/value in the memory that the pointer points to - the contents of the address with that numerical index - then you dereference the pointer.

Different computer languages have different notations to tell the compiler or interpreter that you're now interested in the pointed-to object's (current) value - I focus below on C and C++.

A pointer scenario
Consider in C, given a pointer such as p below...

const char* p = "abc";