[Numpy-discussion] NEP for faster ufuncs
Francesc Alted
faltet@pytables....
Wed Dec 22 02:21:39 CST 2010
A Wednesday 22 December 2010 01:53:55 Mark Wiebe escrigué:
> Hello NumPy-ers,
>
> After some performance analysis, I've designed and implemented a new
> iterator designed to speed up ufuncs and allow for easier
> multi-dimensional iteration. The new code is fairly large, but
> works quite well already. If some people could read the NEP and
> give some feedback, that would be great! Here's a link:
>
> https://github.com/m-paradox/numpy/blob/mw_neps/doc/neps/new-iterator
> -ufunc.rst
>
> I would also love it if someone could try building the code and play
> around with it a bit. The github branch is here:
>
> https://github.com/m-paradox/numpy/tree/new_iterator
>
> To give a taste of the iterator's functionality, below is an example
> from the NEP for how to implement a "Lambda UFunc." With just a few
> lines of code, it's possible to replicate something similar to the
> numexpr library (numexpr still gets a bigger speedup, though). In
> the example expression I chose, execution time went from 138ms to
> 61ms.
>
> Hopefully this is a good Christmas present for NumPy. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> Here is the definition of the ``luf`` function.::
>
> def luf(lamdaexpr, *args, **kwargs):
> """Lambda UFunc
>
> e.g.
> c = luf(lambda i,j:i+j, a, b, order='K',
> casting='safe', buffersize=8192)
>
> c = np.empty(...)
> luf(lambda i,j:i+j, a, b, out=c, order='K',
> casting='safe', buffersize=8192)
> """
>
> nargs = len(args)
> op = args + (kwargs.get('out',None),)
> it = np.newiter(op, ['buffered','no_inner_iteration'],
> [['readonly','nbo_aligned']]*nargs +
>
> [['writeonly','allocate','no_broadcast']],
> order=kwargs.get('order','K'),
> casting=kwargs.get('casting','safe'),
> buffersize=kwargs.get('buffersize',0))
> while not it.finished:
> it[-1] = lamdaexpr(*it[:-1])
> it.iternext()
>
> return it.operands[-1]
>
> Then, by using ``luf`` instead of straight Python expressions, we
> can gain some performance from better cache behavior.::
>
> In [2]: a = np.random.random((50,50,50,10))
> In [3]: b = np.random.random((50,50,1,10))
> In [4]: c = np.random.random((50,50,50,1))
>
> In [5]: timeit 3*a+b-(a/c)
> 1 loops, best of 3: 138 ms per loop
>
> In [6]: timeit luf(lambda a,b,c:3*a+b-(a/c), a, b, c)
> 10 loops, best of 3: 60.9 ms per loop
>
> In [7]: np.all(3*a+b-(a/c) == luf(lambda a,b,c:3*a+b-(a/c), a, b,
> c)) Out[7]: True
Wow, really nice work! It would be great if that could make into NumPy
:-) Regarding your comment on numexpr being faster, I'm not sure (your
new_iterator branch does not work for me; it gives me an error like:
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'newiter'), but my
guess is that your approach seems actually faster:
>>> a = np.random.random((50,50,50,10))
>>> b = np.random.random((50,50,1,10))
>>> c = np.random.random((50,50,50,1))
>>> timeit 3*a+b-(a/c)
10 loops, best of 3: 67.5 ms per loop
>>> import numexpr as ne
>>> ne.evaluate("3*a+b-(a/c)
>>> timeit ne.evaluate("3*a+b-(a/c)")
10 loops, best of 3: 42.8 ms per loop
i.e. numexpr is not able to achieve the 2x speedup mark that you are
getting with ``luf`` (using a Core2 @ 3 GHz here).
--
Francesc Alted
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list