So, I'm trying to optimize a program I made, and two glaring inefficiencies I have found with the help of the profiler are these:
if (min(image_arr(j,i,:)) > 0.1)
image_arr(j,i,:) = image_arr(j,i,:) - min(image_arr(j,i,:));
end
%"Grounds" the data, making sure the points start close to 0
Called 4990464 times, takes 58.126s total, 21.8% of total compile time.
[max_mag , max_index] = max(image_arr(j, i, :));
%finds the maximum value and its index in the set
Called 4990464 times, takes 50.900s total, 19.1% of total compile time.
Is there any alternative to max and min that I can use here, that would be more efficient?
There is no way to reduce the number of times these lines are called.
Based on the call count, these are probably inside a loop. Both min and max are vectorized (they work on vectors of vectors).
Since you want to find extrema along the third dimension, you can use:
image_arr = bsxfun(#minus, image_arr, min(image_arr, [], 3));
and
[max_mag , max_index] = max(image_arr, [], 3);
It seems like:
if (min(image_arr(j,i,:)) > 0.1)
image_arr(j,i,:) = image_arr(j,i,:) - min(image_arr(j,i,:));
end
could be rewritten like this:
data = image_arr(j,i,:);
mn = min(data);
if (mn > 0.1)
image_arr(j,i,:) = data - mn;
end
which seems like the inner loop of something that could be written like:
minarr = min(image_arr)
[a,b] = find(minarr > 0.1);
image_arr(a,b,:) = image_arr(a,b,:) - minarr(a,b)
Rename your i and j.
Those names have meaning to MATLAB, and every time it sees them it has to check whether you have your own definition or they mean sqrt(-1).
The first part can be done without loops using bsxfun.
m = min(image_arr,[],3);
image_arr = bsxfun(#minus, image_arr, m.*(m>0.1));
Related
It is a straightforward question: Is there a faster alternative to all(a(:,i)==a,1) in MATLAB?
I'm thinking of a implementation that benefits from short-circuit evaluations in the whole process. I mean, all() definitely benefits from short-circuit evaluations but a(:,i)==a doesn't.
I tried the following code,
% example for the input matrix
m = 3; % m and n aren't necessarily equal to those values.
n = 5000; % It's only possible to know in advance that 'm' << 'n'.
a = randi([0,5],m,n); % the maximum value of 'a' isn't necessarily equal to
% 5 but it's possible to state that every element in
% 'a' is a positive integer.
% all, equal solution
tic
for i = 1:n % stepping up the elapsed time in orders of magnitude
%%%%%%%%%% all and equal solution %%%%%%%%%
ax_boo = all(a(:,i)==a,1);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
end
toc
% alternative solution
tic
for i = 1:n % stepping up the elapsed time in orders of magnitude
%%%%%%%%%%% alternative solution %%%%%%%%%%%
ax_boo = a(1,i) == a(1,:);
for k = 2:m
ax_boo(ax_boo) = a(k,i) == a(k,ax_boo);
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
end
toc
but it's intuitive that any "for-loop-solution" within the MATLAB environment will be naturally slower. I'm wondering if there is a MATLAB built-in function written in a faster language.
EDIT:
After running more tests I found out that the implicit expansion does have a performance impact in evaluating a(:,i)==a. If the matrix a has more than one row, all(repmat(a(:,i),[1,n])==a,1) may be faster than all(a(:,i)==a,1) depending on the number of columns (n). For n=5000 repmat explicit expansion has proved to be faster.
But I think that a generalization of Kenneth Boyd's answer is the "ultimate solution" if all elements of a are positive integers. Instead of dealing with a (m x n matrix) in its original form, I will store and deal with adec (1 x n matrix):
exps = ((0):(m-1)).';
base = max(a,[],[1,2]) + 1;
adec = sum( a .* base.^exps , 1 );
In other words, each column will be encoded to one integer. And of course adec(i)==adec is faster than all(a(:,i)==a,1).
EDIT 2:
I forgot to mention that adec approach has a functional limitation. At best, storing adec as uint64, the following inequality must hold base^m < 2^64 + 1.
Since your goal is to count the number of columns that match, my example converts the binary encoding to integer decimals, then you just loop over the possible values (with 3 rows that are 8 possible values) and count the number of matches.
a_dec = 2.^(0:(m-1)) * a;
num_poss_values = 2 ^ m;
num_matches = zeros(num_poss_values, 1);
for i = 1:num_poss_values
num_matches(i) = sum(a_dec == (i - 1));
end
On my computer, using 2020a, Here are the execution times for your first 2 options and the code above:
Elapsed time is 0.246623 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.553173 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.000289 seconds.
So my code is 853 times faster!
I wrote my code so it will work with m being an arbitrary integer.
The num_matches variable contains the number of columns that add up to 0, 1, 2, ...7 when converted to a decimal.
As an alternative you can use the third output of unique:
[~, ~, iu] = unique(a.', 'rows');
for i = 1:n
ax_boo = iu(i) == iu;
end
As indicated in a comment:
ax_boo isolates the indices of the columns I have to sum in a row vector b. So, basically the next line would be something like c = sum(b(ax_boo),2);
It is a typical usage of accumarray:
[~, ~, iu] = unique(a.', 'rows');
C = accumarray(iu,b);
for i = 1:n
c = C(i);
end
My problem is roughly as follows. Given a numerical matrix X, where each row is an item. I want to find each row's nearest neighbor in terms of L2 distance in all rows except itself. I tried reading the official documentation but was still a little confused about how to achieve this. Could someone give me some hint?
My code is as follows
function l2_dist(v1, v2)
return sqrt(sum((v1 - v2) .^ 2))
end
function main(Mat, dist_fun)
n = size(Mat, 1)
Dist = SharedArray{Float64}(n) #[Inf for i in 1:n]
Id = SharedArray{Int64}(n) #[-1 for i in 1:n]
#parallel for i = 1:n
Dist[i] = Inf
Id[i] = 0
end
Threads.#threads for i in 1:n
for j in 1:n
if i != j
println(i, j)
dist_temp = dist_fun(Mat[i, :], Mat[j, :])
if dist_temp < Dist[i]
println("Dist updated!")
Dist[i] = dist_temp
Id[i] = j
end
end
end
end
return Dict("Dist" => Dist, "Id" => Id)
end
n = 4000
p = 30
X = [rand() for i in 1:n, j in 1:p];
main(X[1:30, :], l2_dist)
#time N = main(X, l2_dist)
I'm trying to distributed all the i's (i.e. calculating each row minimum) over different cores. But the version above apparently isn't working correctly. It is even slower than the sequential version. Can someone point me to the right direction? Thanks.
Maybe you're doing something in addition to what you have written down, but, at this point from what I can see, you aren't actually doing any computations in parallel. Julia requires you to tell it how many processors (or threads) you would like it to have access to. You can do this through either
Starting Julia with multiple processors julia -p # (where # is the number of processors you want Julia to have access to)
Once you have started a Julia "session" you can call the addprocs function to add additional processors.
To have more than 1 thread, you need to run command export JULIA_NUM_THREADS = #. I don't know very much about threading, so I will be sticking with the #parallel macro. I suggest reading documentation for more details on threading -- Maybe #Chris Rackauckas could expand a little more on the difference.
A few comments below about my code and on your code:
I'm on version 0.6.1-pre.0. I don't think I'm doing anything 0.6 specific, but this is a heads up just in case.
I'm going to use the Distances.jl package when computing the distances between vectors. I think it is a good habit to farm out as many of my computations to well-written and well-maintained packages as possible.
Rather than compute the distance between rows, I'm going to compute the distance between columns. This is because Julia is a column-major language, so this will increase the number of cache hits and give a little extra speed. You can obviously get the row-wise results you want by just transposing the input.
Unless you expect to have that many memory allocations then that many allocations are a sign that something in your code is inefficient. It is often a type stability problem. I don't know if that was the case in your code before, but that doesn't seem to be an issue in the current version (it wasn't immediately clear to me why you were having so many allocations).
Code is below
# Make sure all processors have access to Distances package
#everywhere using Distances
# Create a random matrix
nrow = 30
ncol = 4000
# Seed creation of random matrix so it is always same matrix
srand(42)
X = rand(nrow, ncol)
function main(X::AbstractMatrix{Float64}, M::Distances.Metric)
# Get size of the matrix
nrow, ncol = size(X)
# Create `SharedArray` to store output
ind_vec = SharedArray{Int}(ncol)
dist_vec = SharedArray{Float64}(ncol)
# Compute the distance between columns
#sync #parallel for i in 1:ncol
# Initialize various temporary variables
min_dist_i = Inf
min_ind_i = -1
X_i = view(X, :, i)
# Check distance against all other columns
for j in 1:ncol
# Skip comparison with itself
if i==j
continue
end
# Tell us who is doing the work
# (can uncomment if you want to verify stuff)
# println("Column $i compared with Column $j by worker $(myid())")
# Evaluate the new distance...
# If it is less then replace it, otherwise proceed
dist_temp = evaluate(M, X_i, view(X, :, j))
if dist_temp < min_dist_i
min_dist_i = dist_temp
min_ind_i = j
end
end
# Which column is minimum distance from column i
dist_vec[i] = min_dist_i
ind_vec[i] = min_ind_i
end
return dist_vec, ind_vec
end
# Using Euclidean metric
metric = Euclidean()
inds, dist = main(X, metric)
#time main(X, metric);
#show dist[[1, 5, 25]], inds[[1, 5, 25]]
You can run the code with
1 processor julia testfile.jl
% julia testfile.jl
0.640365 seconds (16.00 M allocations: 732.495 MiB, 3.70% gc time)
(dist[[1, 5, 25]], inds[[1, 5, 25]]) = ([2541, 2459, 1602], [1.40892, 1.38206, 1.32184])
n processors (in this case 4) julia -p n testfile.jl
% julia -p 4 testfile.jl
0.201523 seconds (2.10 k allocations: 99.107 KiB)
(dist[[1, 5, 25]], inds[[1, 5, 25]]) = ([2541, 2459, 1602], [1.40892, 1.38206, 1.32184])
Motivation:
In writing out a matrix operation that was to be performed over tens of thousands of vectors I kept coming across the warning:
Requested 200000x200000 (298.0GB) array exceeds maximum array size
preference. Creation of arrays greater than this limit may take a long
time and cause MATLAB to become unresponsive. See array size limit or
preference panel for more information.
The reason for this was my use of diag() to get the values down the diagonal of an matrix inner product. Because MATLAB is generally optimized for vector/matrix operations, when I first write code, I usually go for the vectorized form. In this case, however, MATLAB has to build the entire matrix in order to get the diagonal which causes the memory and speed issues.
Experiment:
I decided to test the use of diag() vs a for loop to see if at any point it was more efficient to use diag():
num = 200000; % Matrix dimension
x = ones(num, 1);
y = 2 * ones(num, 1);
% z = diag(x*y'); % Expression to solve
% Loop approach
tic
z = zeros(num,1);
for i = 1 : num
z(i) = x(i)*y(i);
end
toc
% Dividing the too-large matrix into process-able chunks
fraction = [10, 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000, 10000, 20000];
time = zeros(size(fraction));
for k = 1 : length(fraction)
f = fraction(k);
% Operation to time
tic
z = zeros(num,1);
for i = 1 : k
first = (i-1) * (num / f);
last = first + (num / f);
z(first + 1 : last) = diag(x(first + 1: last) * y(first + 1 : last)');
end
time(k) = toc;
end
% Plot results
figure;
hold on
plot(log10(fraction), log10(chunkTime));
plot(log10(fraction), repmat(log10(loopTime), 1, length(fraction)));
plot(log10(fraction), log10(chunkTime), 'g*'); % Plot points along time
legend('Partioned Running Time', 'Loop Running Time');
xlabel('Log_{10}(Fractional Size)'), ylabel('Log_{10}(Running Time)'), title('Running Time Comparison');
This is the result of the test:
(NOTE: The red line represents the loop time as a threshold--it's not to say that the total loop time is constant regardless of the number of loops)
From the graph it is clear that it takes breaking the operations down into roughly 200x200 square matrices to be faster to use diag than to perform the same operation using loops.
Question:
Can someone explain why I'm seeing these results? Also, I would think that with MATLAB's ever-more optimized design, there would be built-in handling of these massive matrices within a diag() function call. For example, it could just perform the i = j indexed operations. Is there a particular reason why this might be prohibitive?
I also haven't really thought of memory implications for diag using the partition method, although it's clear that as the partition size decreases, memory requirements drop.
Test of speed of diag vs. a loop.
Initialization:
n = 10000;
M = randn(n, n); %create a random matrix.
Test speed of diag:
tic;
d = diag(M);
toc;
Test speed of loop:
tic;
d = zeros(n, 1);
for i=1:n
d(i) = M(i,i);
end;
toc;
This would test diag. Your code is not a clean test of diag...
Comment on where there might be confusion
Diag only extracts the diagonal of a matrix. If x and y are vectors, and you do d = diag(x * y'), MATLAB first constructs the n by n matrix x*y' and calls diag on that. This is why, you get the error, "cannot construct 290GB matrix..." Matlab interpreter does not optimize in a crazy way, realize you only want the diagonal and construct just a vector (rather than full matrix with x*y', that does not happen.
Not sure if you're asking this, but the fastest way to calculate d = diag(x*y') where x and y are n by 1 vectors would simply be: d = x.*y
I have a matrix, matrix_logical(50000,100000), that is a sparse logical matrix (a lot of falses, some true). I have to produce a matrix, intersect(50000,50000), that, for each pair, i,j, of rows of matrix_logical(50000,100000), stores the number of columns for which rows i and j have both "true" as the value.
Here is the code I wrote:
% store in advance the nonzeros cols
for i=1:50000
nonzeros{i} = num2cell(find(matrix_logical(i,:)));
end
intersect = zeros(50000,50000);
for i=1:49999
a = cell2mat(nonzeros{i});
for j=(i+1):50000
b = cell2mat(nonzeros{j});
intersect(i,j) = numel(intersect(a,b));
end
end
Is it possible to further increase the performance? It takes too long to compute the matrix. I would like to avoid the double loop in the second part of the code.
matrix_logical is sparse, but it is not saved as sparse in MATLAB because otherwise the performance become the worst possible.
Since the [i,j] entry counts the number of non zero elements in the element-wise multiplication of rows i and j, you can do it by multiplying matrix_logical with its transpose (you should convert to numeric data type first, e.g matrix_logical = single(matrix_logical)):
inter = matrix_logical * matrix_logical';
And it works both for sparse or full representation.
EDIT
In order to calculate numel(intersect(a,b))/numel(union(a,b)); (as asked in your comment), you can use the fact that for two sets a and b, you have
length(union(a,b)) = length(a) + length(b) - length(intersect(a,b))
so, you can do the following:
unLen = sum(matrix_logical,2);
tmp = repmat(unLen, 1, length(unLen)) + repmat(unLen', length(unLen), 1);
inter = matrix_logical * matrix_logical';
inter = inter ./ (tmp-inter);
If I understood you correctly, you want a logical AND of the rows:
intersct = zeros(50000, 50000)
for ii = 1:49999
for jj = ii:50000
intersct(ii, jj) = sum(matrix_logical(ii, :) & matrix_logical(jj, :));
intersct(jj, ii) = intersct(ii, jj);
end
end
Doesn't avoid the double loop, but at least works without the first loop and the slow find command.
Elaborating on my comment, here is a distance function suitable for pdist()
function out = distfun(xi,xj)
out = zeros(size(xj,1),1);
for i=1:size(xj,1)
out(i) = sum(sum( xi & xj(i,:) )) / sum(sum( xi | xj(i,:) ));
end
In my experience, sum(sum()) is faster for logicals than nnz(), thus its appearance above.
You would also need to use squareform() to reshape the output of pdist() appropriately:
squareform(pdist(martrix_logical,#distfun));
Note that pdist() includes a 'jaccard' distance measure, but it is actually the Jaccard distance and not the Jaccard index or coefficient, which is the value you are apparently after.
I would like to compute the maximum of translated images along the direction of a given axis. I know about ordfilt2, however I would like to avoid using the Image Processing Toolbox.
So here is the code I have so far:
imInput = imread('tire.tif');
n = 10;
imMax = imInput(:, n:end);
for i = 1:(n-1)
imMax = max(imMax, imInput(:, i:end-(n-i)));
end
Is it possible to avoid using a for-loop in order to speed the computation up, and, if so, how?
First edit: Using Octave's code for im2col is actually 50% slower.
Second edit: Pre-allocating did not appear to improve the result enough.
sz = [size(imInput,1), size(imInput,2)-n+1];
range_j = 1:size(imInput, 2)-sz(2)+1;
range_i = 1:size(imInput, 1)-sz(1)+1;
B = zeros(prod(sz), length(range_j)*length(range_i));
counter = 0;
for j = range_j % left to right
for i = range_i % up to bottom
counter = counter + 1;
v = imInput(i:i+sz(1)-1, j:j+sz(2)-1);
B(:, counter) = v(:);
end
end
imMax = reshape(max(B, [], 2), sz);
Third edit: I shall show the timings.
For what it's worth, here's a vectorized solution using IM2COL function from the Image Processing Toolbox:
imInput = imread('tire.tif');
n = 10;
sz = [size(imInput,1) size(imInput,2)-n+1];
imMax = reshape(max(im2col(imInput, sz, 'sliding'),[],2), sz);
imshow(imMax)
You could perhaps write your own version of IM2COL as it simply consists of well crafted indexing, or even look at how Octave implements it.
Check out the answer to this question about doing a rolling median in c. I've successfully made it into a mex function and it is way faster than even ordfilt2. It will take some work to do a max, but I'm sure it's possible.
Rolling median in C - Turlach implementation