Given an unsorted vector as source, the goal is to create a sorted copy as fast as possible.
There are two possibilities:
1. create a vector copy then sort it
2. or insert each element one after the other, to build the sorted vector incrementally.
Which is theoretically the faster way?
This question has very little to do with C++ specifically (except using the word "vector", which also exists in may other languages). Since this reads like an exercise, I really recommend writing a program to test it out:
1. write a program that builds a vector of random N integers, v1
2. copy the vector to v2, via std::copy
3. time how long it takes to use insertion-sort (option 2 above), using a loop
4. time how long std::sort(v2, v2.begin(), v2.end()) takes
You can time things using different timers, either the old <ctime> header or the newer <chrono> one. See this answer for alternatives.
You should find that, for small sizes of N, the loop from step 3 is faster or equivalent to step 4 - and from a few hundred onward, std::sort becomes better and better. Welcome to asymptotic complexity and big-o notation!
Answers can be found in the following nice conference: in short, this depends on the size of the vector. Hence Peter's comment is the best one.
CppCon 2018: Frederic Tingaud “A Little Order: Delving into the STL sorting algorithms”
Related
Im working on a project for which I need to make calculations with vectors (orthogonalizing a matrix using gram schmidt method). The length of this vectors is unknown now, the program must be able to adapt to different lengths. One of such calculations is calculating a new vector (C) which is the result of adding A and B. Each element of the vectors is a number in fixed-point.
I want C(i)=A(i)+B(i). For all the elements of the vector (for i=0 to N, where N is the vector length).
I can find 2 solutions for this but both present some problems:
1- I can declare in the entity, vectors whose length changes according to a generic and then just create a for loop which goes through all the vector.
for I in 0 to N loop
C(I)<=A(I)+B(I);
end loop;
The problem with this solution is that the execution would be sequential, and therefore slow. Im not completly sure about this and I dont know how to check it but I guess that the compiler is not smart enough to notice that it can be processed in parallel. In this application speed is a key factor.
2- I can declare vectors which are as long as the maximum possible length for the actual data and fill them with zeroes. Then I could just assign:
C(0)<=A(0)+B(0);
C(1)<=A(1)+B(1);
C(2)<=A(2)+B(2);
...
C(Nmax)<=A(Nmax)+B(Nmax);
This is not an elegant solution and in this application N can be between 3 and 300 therefore it could be a complete waste and tedious to program.
3- I want to find a third solution which could be able to create a number (asigned by the generic) of combinational calculations following a template such as C(i)=A(i)+B(i). Is there any solution like this? It is actually creating a loop which would not be executed sequentially but instead all at the same time.
I know that similar stuff can be done using CUDA but this project is actually a comparison between GPUs and FPGAs, so changing the platform is not a suitable solution either.
Thank you in advance
Edit: I have tought of another unsatisfactory solution but I want to share it in case it is helpful for somebody else checking this in the future. Given that A and B have the same length, you can write them in a 1-D format, that is: A(normal)=[1001,1100,0011], A(1-D)=100111000011. The same would be done with B.
If you know before hand that the sum of any two possible numbers can be expressed with the same amount of bits, there will be no problems. So with 4 unsigned bits you should make sure that in any possible case the numbers in A or B are !>0111 (not higher than 0111). You could just write C(1-D)=A(1-D)+B(1-D) and then just asign C(0)=C(1-D)(3 downto 0), C(1)=C(1-D)(7 downto 4) etc.
If you cannot make sure that the numbers are not higher than 0111 (in the 4 bit case) it wont work.
You might be able to use the length attribute to create a loop depending on the size of your vector.
https://www.csee.umbc.edu/portal/help/VHDL/attribute.html
As mentioned in the comment to the question the loop should be unrolled as long as it is not synchronized to the clock.
I would like to verify whether an element is present in a MATLAB matrix.
At the beginning, I implemented as follows:
if ~isempty(find(matrix(:) == element))
which is obviously slow. Thus, I changed to:
if sum(matrix(:) == element) ~= 0
but this is again slow: I am calling a lot of times the function that contains this instruction, and I lose 14 seconds each time!
Is there a way of further optimize this instruction?
Thanks.
If you just need to know if a value exists in a matrix, using the second argument of find to specify that you just want one value will be slightly faster (25-50%) and even a bit faster than using sum, at least on my machine. An example:
matrix = randi(100,1e4,1e4);
element = 50;
~isempty(find(matrix(:)==element,1))
However, in recent versions of Matlab (I'm using R2014b), nnz is finally faster for this operation, so:
matrix = randi(100,1e4,1e4);
element = 50;
nnz(matrix==element)~=0
On my machine this is about 2.8 times faster than any other approach (including using any, strangely) for the example provided. To my mind, this solution also has the benefit of being the most readable.
In my opinion, there are several things you could try to improve performance:
following your initial idea, i would go for the function any to test is any of the equality tests had a success:
if any(matrix(:) == element)
I tested this on a 1000 by 1000 matrix and it is faster than the solutions you have tested.
I do not think that the unfolding matrix(:) is penalizing since it is equivalent to a reshape and Matlab does this in a smart way where it does not actually allocate and move memory since you are not modifying the temporary object matrix(:)
If your does not change between the calls to the function or changes rarely you could simply use another vector containing all the elements of your matrix, but sorted. This way you could use a more efficient search algorithm O(log(N)) test for the presence of your element.
I personally like the ismember function for this kind of problems. It might not be the fastest but for non critical parts of the code it greatly improves readability and code maintenance (and I prefer to spend one hour coding something that will take day to run than spending one day to code something that will run in one hour (this of course depends on how often you use this program, but it is something one should never forget)
If you can have a sorted copy of the elements of your matrix, you could consider using the undocumented Matlab function ismembc but remember that inputs must be sorted non-sparse non-NaN values.
If performance really is critical you might want to write your own mex file and for this task you could even include some simple parallelization using openmp.
Hope this helps,
Adrien.
Appending an element onto a million-element ArrayList has the cost of setting one reference now, and copying one reference in the future when the ArrayList must be resized.
As I understand it, appending an element onto a million-element PersistenVector must create a new path, which consists of 4 arrays of size 32. Which means more than 120 references have to be touched.
How does Clojure manage to keep the vector overhead to "2.5 times worse" or "4 times worse" (as opposed to "60 times worse"), which has been claimed in several Clojure videos I have seen recently? Has it something to do with caching or locality of reference or something I am not aware of?
Or is it somehow possible to build a vector internally with mutation and then turn it immutable before revealing it to the outside world?
I have tagged the question scala as well, since scala.collection.immutable.vector is basically the same thing, right?
Clojure's PersistentVector's have special tail buffer to enable efficient operation at the end of the vector. Only after this 32-element array is filled is it added to the rest of the tree. This keeps the amortized cost low. Here is one article on the implementation. The source is also worth a read.
Regarding, "is it somehow possible to build a vector internally with mutation and then turn it immutable before revealing it to the outside world?", yes! These are known as transients in Clojure, and are used for efficient batch changes.
Cannot tell about Clojure, but I can give some comments about Scala Vectors.
Persistent Scala vectors (scala.collection.immutable.Vectors) are much slower than an array buffer when it comes to appending. In fact, they are 10x slower than the List prepend operation. They are 2x slower than appending to Conc-trees, which we use in Parallel Collections.
But, Scala also has mutable vectors -- they're hidden in the class VectorBuilder. Appending to mutable vectors does not preserve the previous version of the vector, but mutates it in place by keeping the pointer to the rightmost leaf in the vector. So, yes -- keeping the vector mutable internally, and than returning an immutable reference is exactly what's done in Scala collections.
The VectorBuilder is slightly faster than the ArrayBuffer, because it needs to allocate its arrays only once, whereas ArrayBuffer needs to do it twice on average (because of growing). Conc.Buffers, which we use as parallel array combiners, are twice as fast compared to VectorBuilders.
Benchmarks are here. None of the benchmarks involve any boxing, they work with reference objects to avoid any bias:
comparison of Scala List, Vector and Conc
comparison of Scala ArrayBuffer, VectorBuilder and Conc.Buffer
More collections benchmarks here.
These tests were executed using ScalaMeter.
I'm curious if anyone could explain a branchless binary search implementation to me. I saw it mentioned in a recent question but I can't imagine how it would be implemented. I assume it could be useful to avoid branches if the number of items is quite large.
I'm going to assume you're talking about the sentence "Make a static const array of all the perfect squares in the domain you want to support, and perform a fast branchless binary search on it." found in this answer.
A "branchless" binary search is basically just an unrolled binary search loop. This only works if you know in advance the number of items in the array you're searching (as you would if it's static const). You can write a program to write the unrolled code if it's too long to do by hand.
Then, you must benchmark your solution to see whether it really is faster than a loop. If your branchless code is too big, it won't fit inside the CPU's fast instruction cache and will take longer to run than the equivalent loop.
If one has a function which returns +1, -1, or 0 based upon the position of the correct item versus the current one, one could initialize position to list size/2, and stepsize to position/2, and then after each comparison do position+=direction*stepsize; stepsize=stepsize/2. Iterate until stepsize is zero.
What is the fastest way in R to compute a recursive sequence defined as
x[1] <- x1
x[n] <- f(x[n-1])
I am assuming that the vector x of proper length is preallocated. Is there a smarter way than just looping?
Variant: extend this to vectors:
x[,1] <- x1
x[,n] <- f(x[,n-1])
Solve the recurrence relationship ;)
In terms of the question of whether this can be fully "vectorized" in any way, I think the answer is probably "no". The fundamental idea behind array programming is that operations apply to an entire set of values at the same time. Similarly for questions of "embarassingly parallel" computation. In this case, since your recursive algorithm depends on each prior state, there would be no way to gain speed from parallel processing: it must be run serially.
That being said, the usual advice for speeding up your program applies. For instance, do as much of the calculation outside of your recursive function as possible. Sort everything. Predefine your array lengths so they don't have to grow during the looping. Etc. See this question for a similar discussion. There is also a pseudocode example in Tim Hesterberg's article on efficient S-Plus Programming.
You could consider writing it in C / C++ / Fortran and use the handy inline package to deal with the compiling, linking and loading for you.
Of course, your function f() may be a real constraint if that one needs to remain an R function. There is a callback-from-C++-to-R example in Rcpp but this requires a bit more work than just using inline.
Well if you need the entire sequence how fast it can be? assuming that the function is O(1), you cannot do better than O(n), and looping through will give you just that.
In general, the syntax x$y <- f(z) will have to reallocate x every time, which would be very slow if x is a large object. But, it turns out that R has some tricks so that the list replacement function [[<- doesn't reallocate the whole list every time. So I think you can reasonably efficiently do:
x[[1]] <- x1
for (m in seq(2, n))
x[[m]] <- f(x[[m-1]])
The only wasteful aspect here is that you have to generate an array of length n-1 for the for loop, which isn't ideal, but it's probably not a giant issue. You could replace it by a while loop if you preferred. The usual vectorization tricks (lapply, etc.) won't work here...
(The double brackets give you a list element, which is what you probably want, rather than a singleton list.)
For more details, see Chambers (2008). Software for Data Analysis. p. 473-474.