Algorithm to find Largest prime factor of a number

Question

What is the best approach to calculating the largest prime factor of a number?

I'm thinking the most efficient would be the following:

1. Find lowest prime number that divides cleanly
2. Check if result of division is prime
3. If not, find next lowest
4. Go to 2.

I'm basing this assumption on it being easier to calculate the small prime factors. Is this about right? What other approaches should I look into?

Edit: I've now realised that my approach is futile if there are more than 2 prime factors in play, since step 2 fails when the result is a product of two other primes, therefore a recursive algorithm is needed.

Edit again: And now I've realised that this does still work, because the last found prime number has to be the highest one, therefore any further testing of the non-prime result from step 2 would result in a smaller prime.

Answer 1

    //this method skips unnecessary trial divisions and makes 
    //trial division more feasible for finding large primes

    public static void main(String[] args) 
    {
        long n= 1000000000039L; //this is a large prime number 
        long i = 2L;
        int test = 0;

        while (n > 1)
        {
            while (n % i == 0)
            {
                n /= i;     
            }

            i++;

            if(i*i > n && n > 1) 
            {
                System.out.println(n); //prints n if it's prime
                test = 1;
                break;
            }
        }

        if (test == 0)  
            System.out.println(i-1); //prints n if it's the largest prime factor
    }

Answer 2

My answer is based on Triptych's, but improves a lot on it. It is based on the fact that beyond 2 and 3, all the prime numbers are of the form 6n-1 or 6n+1.

var largestPrimeFactor;
if(n mod 2 == 0)
{
    largestPrimeFactor = 2;
    n = n / 2 while(n mod 2 == 0);
}
if(n mod 3 == 0)
{
    largestPrimeFactor = 3;
    n = n / 3 while(n mod 3 == 0);
}

multOfSix = 6;
while(multOfSix - 1 <= n)
{
    if(n mod (multOfSix - 1) == 0)
    {
        largestPrimeFactor = multOfSix - 1;
        n = n / largestPrimeFactor while(n mod largestPrimeFactor == 0);
    }

    if(n mod (multOfSix + 1) == 0)
    {
        largestPrimeFactor = multOfSix + 1;
        n = n / largestPrimeFactor while(n mod largestPrimeFactor == 0);
    }
    multOfSix += 6;
}

I recently wrote a blog article explaining how this algorithm works.

I would venture that a method in which there is no need for a test for primality (and no sieve construction) would run faster than one which does use those. If that is the case, this is probably the fastest algorithm here.

Answer 3

Here is my approach to quickly calculate the largest prime factor. It is based on fact that modified x does not contain non-prime factors. To achieve that, we divide x as soon as a factor is found. Then, the only thing left is to return the largest factor. It would be already prime.

The code (Haskell):

f max' x i | i > x = max'
           | x `rem` i == 0 = f i (x `div` i) i  -- Divide x by its factor
           | otherwise = f max' x (i + 1)  -- Check for the next possible factor

g x = f 2 x 2

Answer 4

It seems to me that step #2 of the algorithm given isn't going to be all that efficient an approach. You have no reasonable expectation that it is prime.

Also, the previous answer suggesting the Sieve of Eratosthenes is utterly wrong. I just wrote two programs to factor 123456789. One was based on the Sieve, one was based on the following:

1)  Test = 2 
2)  Current = Number to test 
3)  If Current Mod Test = 0 then  
3a)     Current = Current Div Test 
3b)     Largest = Test
3c)     Goto 3. 
4)  Inc(Test) 
5)  If Current < Test goto 4
6)  Return Largest

This version was 90x faster than the Sieve.

The thing is, on modern processors the type of operation matters far less than the number of operations, not to mention that the algorithm above can run in cache, the Sieve can't. The Sieve uses a lot of operations striking out all the composite numbers.

Note, also, that my dividing out factors as they are identified reduces the space that must be tested.

Answer 5

The following C++ algorithm is not the best one, but it works for numbers under a billion and its pretty fast

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

// ------ is_prime ------
// Determines if the integer accepted is prime or not
bool is_prime(int n){
    int i,count=0;
    if(n==1 || n==2)
      return true;
    if(n%2==0)
      return false;
    for(i=1;i<=n;i++){
    if(n%i==0)
        count++;
    }
    if(count==2)
      return true;
    else
      return false;
 }
 // ------ nextPrime -------
 // Finds and returns the next prime number
 int nextPrime(int prime){
     bool a = false;
     while (a == false){
         prime++;
         if (is_prime(prime))
            a = true;
     }
  return prime;
 }
 // ----- M A I N ------
 int main(){

      int value = 13195;
      int prime = 2;
      bool done = false;

      while (done == false){
          if (value%prime == 0){
             value = value/prime;
             if (is_prime(value)){
                 done = true;
             }
          } else {
             prime = nextPrime(prime);
          }
      }
        cout << "Largest prime factor: " << value << endl;
 }

Answer 6

This is probably not always faster but more optimistic about that you find a big prime divisor:

1. N is your number
2. If it is prime then return(N)
3. Calculate primes up until Sqrt(N)
4. Go through the primes in descending order (largest first)
   • If N is divisible by Prime then Return(Prime)

Edit: In step 3 you can use the Sieve of Eratosthenes or Sieve of Atkins or whatever you like, but by itself the sieve won't find you the biggest prime factor. (Thats why I wouldn't choose SQLMenace's post as an official answer...)