Should not a tail-recursive function also be faster?

I have the following Clojure code to calculate a number with开发者_如何学Go a certain "factorable" property. (what exactly the code does is secondary).

(defn factor-9
  ([]
    (let [digits (take 9 (iterate #(inc %) 1))
          nums (map (fn [x] ,(Integer. (apply str x))) (permutations digits))]
      (some (fn [x] (and (factor-9 x) x)) nums)))
  ([n]
      (or
        (= 1 (count (str n)))
        (and (divisible-by-length n) (factor-9 (quot n 10))))))

Now, I'm into TCO and realize that Clojure can only provide tail-recursion if explicitly told so using the recur keyword. So I've rewritten the code to do that (replacing factor-9 with recur being the only difference):

(defn factor-9
  ([]
    (let [digits (take 9 (iterate #(inc %) 1))
          nums (map (fn [x] ,(Integer. (apply str x))) (permutations digits))]
      (some (fn [x] (and (factor-9 x) x)) nums)))
  ([n]
      (or
        (= 1 (count (str n)))
        (and (divisible-by-length n) (recur (quot n 10))))))

To my knowledge, TCO has a double benefit. The first one is that it does not use the stack as heavily as a non tail-recursive call and thus does not blow it on larger recursions. The second, I think is that consequently it's faster since it can be converted to a loop.

Now, I've made a very rough benchmark and have not seen any difference between the two implementations although. Am I wrong in my second assumption or does this have something to do with running on the JVM (which does not have automatic TCO) and recur using a trick to achieve it?

Thank you.

The use of recur does speed things up, but only by about 3 nanoseconds (really) over a recursive call. When things get that small they can be hidden in the noise of the rest of the test. I wrote four tests (link below) that are able to illustrate the difference in performance.

I'd also suggest using something like criterium when benchmarking. (Stack Overflow won't let me post with more than 1 link since I've got no reputation to speak of, so you'll have to google it, maybe "clojure criterium")

For formatting reasons, I've put the tests and results in this gist.

Briefly, to compare relatively, if the recursive test is 1, then the looping test is about 0.45, and the TCO tests about 0.87 and the absolute difference between the recursive and TCO tests are around 3ns.

Of course, all the caveats about benchmarking apply.

When optimizing any code, it's good to start from potential or actual bottlenecks and optimize that first.

It seems to me that this particular piece of code is eating most of your CPU time:

 (map (fn [x] ,(Integer. (apply str x))) (permutations digits))

And that doesn't depend on TCO in any way - it is executed in same way. So, tail call in this particular example will allow you not to use up all the stack, but to achieve better performance, try optimizing this.

just a gentile reminder that clojure has no TCO

After evaluating factor-9 (quot n 10) an and and an or has to be evaluated before the function can return. Thus it is not tail-recursive.