[Strawberry Perl v5.16.3, Windows 7 x64, executing via cmd, eg c:\strawberry> perl test.pl 100000]
SYMPTOM: The following code: foreach (1..$ARGV[0]) { foo($_); }, executes roughly 20% slower than if I had included this extra line, before it: my $num = $ARGV[0];
QUESTION: Can anyone help me understand why?
Notice, in the second case, that after I initialize and set $num, I do not then use $num in the loop parameters. Were this the case, I could probably be convinced that repeatedly testing against $ARGV[0] in a forloop is somehow slower than a variable that I define myself... but this is not the case.
To track time, I use: use Time::HiRes; my $time = [Time::HiRes::gettimeofday()]; at the top of my script, and: print "\n1: ", Time::HiRes::tv_interval($time); at the bottom.
Confused!
Thanks,
Michael
EDIT
I am including the entire script, with a comment preceding the offending line... Interestingly, it looks like the time discrepancy is at least partially dependent on my redundant initialization of %h, as well as #chain... This is getting weird.
use Time::HiRes; my $time = [Time::HiRes::gettimeofday()];
#my $max=$ARGV[0];
my %h = (1=>1,89=>89);
$h{1}=1;
$h{89}=89;
my #chain=();
my $ans=0;
sub sum{my $o=0; foreach (#_){$o+=$_}; return $o;}
foreach (1..$ARGV[0]-1){
my $x=$_;
my #chain = ();
while(!exists($h{$x})){
push(#chain,$x);
$x = sum(map {$_**2} split('',$x));
}
foreach (#chain){$h{$_}=$h{$x} if !exists($h{$_});}
}
print "\n1: ", Time::HiRes::tv_interval($time);
foreach (1..$ARGV[0]){$ans++ if ($h{$_}==89);}
print "\n2: ", Time::HiRes::tv_interval($time);
On my system (perl 5.16.3 on GNU/Linux) there is no measurable difference. The standard deviation of the timings is larger than the difference between measurements of different versions.
For each variant of the script, 10 executions were performed. The $ARGV[0] was 3.5E5 in all cases (350000).
Without my $num = $ARGV[0]:
$ perl measure.pl
2.369921 2.38991 2.380969 4.419895 2.398861 2.420928 2.388721 2.368144 2.387212 2.386347
mean: 2.5910908
sigma: 0.609763793801797
With my $num = $ARGV[0]:
$ perl measure.pl
4.435764 2.419485 2.403696 2.401771 2.411345 2.466776 4.408127 2.416889 2.389191 2.397409
mean: 2.8150453
sigma: 0.803721101668365
The measure.pl script:
use strict; use warnings; use 5.016;
use List::Util 'sum';
my #times = map qx/perl your-algorithm.pl 3.5E5/, 1..10;
chomp #times;
say "#times";
say "mean: ", mean(#times);
say "sigma: ", sigma(#times);
sub mean { sum(#_)/#_ }
sub sigma {
my $mean = mean(#_);
my $variance = sum(map { ($_-$mean)**2 } #_) / #_;
sqrt $variance;
}
With your-algorithm.pl being reduced so that only one timing is printed:
foreach (1..$ARGV[0]){$ans++ if ($h{$_}==89);}
print Time::HiRes::tv_interval($time), "\n";
Related
I am currently trying to improve upon an existing mechanism (to compare data from 2 sources, implemented in perl5) and would like to use perl6 instead.
My target data volume range is about 20-30 GB in uncompressed flat files.
In terms of lines, a file can contain anywhere from 18 million to 28 million lines.
It has around 40-50 columns per line.
I do this type of data reconciliation on a daily basis and it can take about ~10 minutes to read from a file and populate the hash. ~20 minutes spent to read both files and to populate hash.
comparison process takes about ~30-50 minutes including iterating over hash, collecting desired result(s), and writing to output file (csv,psv).
All in all it can take anywhere between 30 minutes to 60 minutes on a 32 core dual xeon cpu server with 256gb of RAM, including intermittent server load, to perform the process.
Now I am trying to bring down the total processing time even further.
Here is my current single threaded approach using perl5.
fetch data from 2 sources (let's say s1 and s2) one by one and populate my hash based on key-value pairs. Source of data could be either a flat csv or psv file OR a database query Array of Array result, via DBI client. Data is always unsorted to start with.
To be specific, I read the file line by line,split fields, and choose desired indexes for key,value pair and insert into hash.
After collecting data and populating hash with desired key/value pairs,I start to compare and collect results (mainy comparing on what is missing or different in s2 w.r.t s1 and vice-versa).
dump output in an excel file (very costly if no. of lines is large like ~1 million or greater) or in a simple CSV (cheap operation. preferred method).
I was wondering whether if I could somehow do the first step in parallel i.e. collect data from both sources at once and populate my global hash, and then proceed to compare and dump output?
What options can perl6 provide to deal with this situation? I have read about concurrency, asynchronous and parallel operations using perl6 but I am not so certain which one can help me here.
I would really appreciate any general guidance on the matter. I hope I explained my problem well but sadly I don't have much to show for what have I tried till now? and reason is that I am just beginning to tackle this one. I am just unable to see past the single threaded approach and need some help.
Thanks.
EDIT
As my existing problem statement has been deemed by the community as 'too broad' - allow me to attempt to highlight my pain points below:
I would like to do file comparison by utilizing all 32 cores if possible. I am just not able to come up with a strategy or initial idea.
What type of new techniques are available or applicable with perl6 in order to tackle this problem or type of problem.
If I spawn 2 processes to read file(s) and collect data - is it possible to get the result back as an array or hash?
Is it possible to compare the data (stored in hash) in parallel?
My current p5 comparison logic is shown below for your reference. Hope this helps and not let this question shutdown.
package COMP;
use strict;
use Data::Dumper;
sub comp
{
my ($data,$src,$tgt) = #_;
my $result = {};
my $ms = ($result->{ms} = {});
my $mt = ($result->{mt} = {});
my $diff = ($result->{diff} = {});
foreach my $key (keys %{$data->{$src}})
{
my $src_val = $data->{$src}{$key};
my $tgt_val = $data->{$tgt}{$key};
next if ($src_val eq $tgt_val);
if (!exists $data->{$tgt}{$key}) {
push (#{$mt->{$key}}, "$src_val|NULL");
}
if (exists $data->{$tgt}{$key} && $src_val ne $tgt_val) {
push (#{$diff->{$key}}, "$src_val|$tgt_val")
}
}
foreach my $key (keys %{$data->{$tgt}})
{
my $src_val = $data->{$src}{$key};
my $tgt_val = $data->{$tgt}{$key};
next if ($src_val eq $tgt_val);
if (!exists $data->{$src}{$key}) {
push (#{$ms->{$key}},"NULL|$tgt_val");
}
}
return $result;
}
1;
If someone would like to try it out, here is the sample output and the test script used.
script output
[User#Host:]$ perl testCOMP.pl
$VAR1 = {
'mt' => {
'Source' => [
'source|NULL'
]
},
'ms' => {
'Target' => [
'NULL|target'
]
},
'diff' => {
'Sunday_isit' => [
'Yes|No'
]
}
};
Test Script
[User#Host:]$ cat testCOMP.pl
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use lib $ENV{PWD};
use COMP;
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
my $data2 = {
f1 => {
Amitabh => 'Bacchan',
YellowSun => 'Yes',
Sunday_isit => 'Yes',
Source => 'source',
},
f2 => {
Amitabh => 'Bacchan',
YellowSun => 'Yes',
Sunday_isit => 'No',
Target => 'target',
},
};
my $result = COMP::comp ($data2,'f1','f2');
print Dumper $result;
[User#Host:]$
If you have an existing and working toolchain you don't have to rewrite it all to use Perl6. It's parallelism mechanisms work fine with external processess too. Consider
allnum.pl6
use v6;
my #processes =
[ "num1.txt", "num2.txt", "num3.txt", "num4.txt", "num5.txt" ]
.map( -> $filename {
[ $filename, run "perl", "num.pl", $filename, :out ];
})
.hyper;
say "Lazyness Here!";
my $time = time;
for #processes
{
say "<{$_[0]} : {$_[1].out.slurp}>";
}
say time - $time, "s";
num.pl
use warnings;
use strict;
my $file = shift #ARGV;
my $start = time;
my $result = 0;
open my $in, "<", $file or die $!;
while (my $thing = <$in>)
{
chomp $thing;
$thing =~ s/ //g;
$result = ($result + $thing) / 2;
}
print $result, " : ", time - $start, "s";
On my system
C:\Users\holli\tmp>perl6 allnum.pl6
Lazyness Here!
<num1.txt : 7684.16347578616 : 3s>
<num2.txt : 3307.36261498186 : 7s>
<num3.txt : 5834.32817942962 : 10s>
<num4.txt : 6575.55944995197 : 0s>
<num5.txt : 6157.63100049619 : 0s>
10s
Files were set up like so
C:\Users\holli\tmp>perl -e "for($i=0;$i<10000000;$i++) { print chr(32) ** 100, int(rand(1000)), chr(32) ** 100, qq(\n); }">num1.txt
C:\Users\holli\tmp>perl -e "for($i=0;$i<20000000;$i++) { print chr(32) ** 100, int(rand(1000)), chr(32) ** 100, qq(\n); }">num2.txt
C:\Users\holli\tmp>perl -e "for($i=0;$i<30000000;$i++) { print chr(32) ** 100, int(rand(1000)), chr(32) ** 100, qq(\n); }">num3.txt
C:\Users\holli\tmp>perl -e "for($i=0;$i<400000;$i++) { print chr(32) ** 100, int(rand(1000)), chr(32) ** 100, qq(\n); }">num4.txt
C:\Users\holli\tmp>perl -e "for($i=0;$i<5000;$i++) { print chr(32) ** 100, int(rand(1000)), chr(32) ** 100, qq(\n); }">num5.txt
I was trying to measure some ways to write to files in PowerShell. No question about that but I don't understand why the first Measure-Command statement below takes longer to be executed than the 2nd statement.
They are the same but in the second one I write a scriptblock to send to Invoke-Command and in the 1st one I only run the command.
All informations about Invoke-Command speed I can find are about remoting.
This block takes about 4 seconds:
Measure-Command {
$stream = [System.IO.StreamWriter] "$PSScriptRoot\t.txt"
$i = 0
while ($i -le 1000000) {
$stream.WriteLine("This is the line number: $i")
$i++
}
$stream.Close()
} # takes 4 sec
And this code below which is exactly the same but written in a scriptblock passed to Invoke-Command takes about 1 second:
Measure-Command {
$cmdtest = {
$stream = [System.IO.StreamWriter] "$PSScriptRoot\t2.txt"
$i = 0
while ($i -le 1000000) {
$stream.WriteLine("This is the line number: $i")
$i++
}
$stream.Close()
}
Invoke-Command -ScriptBlock $cmdtest
} # Takes 1 second
How is that possible?
As it turns out, based on feedback from a PowerShell team member on GitHub issue #8911, the issue is more generally about (implicit) dot-sourcing (such as direct invocation of an expression) vs. running in a child scope, such as with &, the call operator, or, in the case at hand, with Invoke-Command -ScriptBlock.
Running in a child scope avoids variable lookups that are performed when (implicitly) dot-sourcing.
Therefore, as of Windows PowerShell v5.1 / PowerShell (Core) 7.2.x, you can speed up statements involving script blocks by invoking them via & { ... }, in a child scope (somewhat counter-intuitively, given that creating a new scope involves extra work).
Note that using & means that such blocks then cannot modify the caller's variables directly, but there are workarounds.
The following simplified code, which uses a foreach expression to loop 1 million times (1e6) demonstrates the performance advantage of running via & { ... }:
# REGULAR, direct invocation of an expression (a `foreach` statement in this case),
# which is implicitly DOT-SOURCED
(Measure-Command { $result = foreach ($n in 1..1e6) { $n } }).TotalSeconds
# OPTIMIZED invocation in CHILD SCOPE, using & { ... }
# up to 10+ TIMES FASTER, depending on OS and PowerShell edition
(Measure-Command { $result = & { foreach ($n in 1..1e6) { $n } } }).TotalSeconds
However, note that the performance advantage diminishes and can even go away the more preexisting variables are being referenced in the script block:
# Define a few sample variables to reference in the script blocks.
# Note that, due to PowerShell's dynamic scoping, even the child
# scope created by & { ... } sees these variables.
$i1=1; $i2=2; $i3=3; $i4=4; $i5=5
(Measure-Command { $result = foreach ($n in 1..1e6) { $n, $i1, $i2, $i3, $i4, $i5 } }).TotalSeconds
# MAY OR MAY NOT BE FASTER, depending on the OS and PowerShell edition.
(Measure-Command { $result = & { foreach ($n in 1..1e6) { $n, $i1, $i2, $i3, $i4, $i5 } } }).TotalSeconds
The reason is that variables that aren't created in the script block (by assigning to them inside it) require a variable lookup with & { ... } too, due to PowerShell's dynamic scoping (see this answer).
Edit - Answer posted below
I have a script that usually uses #ARGV arguments but in some cases it is invoked by another script (which I cannot modify) that instead only passes a config filename which among other things has the command line options that should have been passed directly.
Example:
Args=--test --pdf "C:\testing\my pdf files\test.pdf"
If possible I'd like a way to parse this string into an array that would be identical to #ARGV.
I have a workaround where I setup an external perl script that just echos #ARGV, and I invoke this script like below (standard boilerplate removed).
echo-args.pl
print join ("\n", #ARGV);
test-echo-args.pl
$my_args = '--test --pdf "C:\testing\my pdf files\test.pdf"';
#args = map { chomp ; $_ } `perl echo-args.pl $my_args`;
This seems inelegant but it works. Is there a better way without invoking a new process? I did try splitting and processing but there are some oddities on the command line e.g. -a"b c" becomes '-ab c' and -a"b"" becomes -ab" and I'd rather not worry about edge cases but I know that'll bite me one day if I don't.
Answer - thanks ikegami!
I've posted a working program below that uses Win32::API and CommandLineToArgvW from shell32.dll based on ikegami's advice. It is intentionally verbose in the hopes that it'll be more easy to follow for anyone like myself who is extremely rusty with C and pointer arithmetic.
Any tips are welcome, apart from the obvious simplifications :)
use strict;
use warnings;
use Encode qw( encode decode );
use Win32::API qw( );
use Data::Dumper;
# create a test argument string, with some variations, and pack it
# apparently an empty string returns $^X which is documented so check before calling
my $arg_string = '--test 33 -3-t" "es 33\t2 ';
my $packed_arg_string = encode('UTF-16le', $arg_string."\0");
# create a packed integer buffer for output
my $packed_argc_buf_ptr = pack('L', 0);
# create then call the function and get the result
my $func = Win32::API->new('shell32.dll', 'CommandLineToArgvW', 'PP', 'N')
or die $^E;
my $ret = $func->Call($packed_arg_string, $packed_argc_buf_ptr);
# unpack to get the number of parsed arguments
my $argc = unpack('L', $packed_argc_buf_ptr);
print "We parsed $argc arguments\n";
# parse the return value to get the actual strings
my #argv = decode_LPWSTR_array($ret, $argc);
print Dumper \#argv;
# try not to leak memory
my $local_free = Win32::API->new('kernel32.dll', 'LocalFree', 'N', '')
or die $^E;
$local_free->Call($ret);
exit;
sub decode_LPWSTR_array {
my ($ptr, $num) = #_;
return undef if !$ptr;
# $ptr is the memory location of the array of strings (i.e. more pointers)
# $num is how many we need to get
my #strings = ();
for (1 .. $num) {
# convert $ptr to a long, using that location read 4 bytes - this is the pointer to the next string
my $string_location = unpack('P4', pack('L', $ptr));
# make it human readable
my $readable_string_location = unpack('L', $string_location);
# decode the string and save it for later
push(#strings, decode_LPCWSTR($readable_string_location));
# our pointers are 32-bit
$ptr += 4;
}
return #strings;
}
# Copied from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5529928/perl-win32api-and-pointers
sub decode_LPCWSTR {
my ($ptr) = #_;
return undef if !$ptr;
my $sW = '';
for (;;) {
my $chW = unpack('P2', pack('L', $ptr));
last if $chW eq "\0\0";
$sW .= $chW;
$ptr += 2;
}
return decode('UTF-16le', $sW);
}
In unix systems, it's the shell that parses that shell command into strings. But in Windows, it's up to each application. I think this is normally done using the CommandLineToArgv system call (which you could call with the help of Win32::API), but the spec is documented here if you want to reimplement it yourself.
I am performing a tiny speed test in order to compare the speed of the Agda programming language with the Tcl scripting language. Its for scientific work and this is just a pre-test, not a real test. I am not in anyway trying to perform a realistic speed comparison!
I have come up with a small example, in which Agda is 10x times faster than Tcl. There are special reasons I use this example. My main concern is that my Tcl code is badly programmed and this is the sole reason Tcl is slower than Agda in this example.
The goal of the code is to parse a line that represents a list of integers and check if it is indeed a list of integers.
Example "(1,2,3)" would be a valid list.
Example "(1,a,3)" would not be a valid list.
My input is a file and I check every third line (3rd) of the file. If any line is not a list of integers, the program prints "false".
My input file:
(613424,505980,317647,870930,75580,897160,716297,668539,689646,196362,533020)
(727375,472272,22435,869407,320468,80779,302881,240382,196077,635360,568517)
(613424,505980,317647,870930,75580,897160,716297,668539,689646,196362,533020)
(however, my real test file is about 3 megabyte large)
My current Tcl code to solve this problem is:
package require Tcl 8.6
proc checkListNat {str} {
set list [split [string map {"(" "" ")" ""} $str] ","]
foreach l $list {
if {[string is integer $l] == 0} {
return 0
}
}
return 1
}
set i 1
set fp [open "/tmp/test.txt" r]
while { [gets $fp data] >= 0 } {
incr i
if { [expr $i % 3] == 0} {
if { [checkListNat $data] == 0 } {
puts "error"
}
}
}
close $fp
How can I optimize my current Tcl code, so that the speed test between Agda and Tcl is more realistic?
The first thing to do is to put as much code in procedures (or lambda terms) as possible and ensure that all expressions are braced. Those were your two key problems that were killing performance. We'll do a few other things too (you hardly ever need expr inside an if test and this wasn't one of those cases, string trim is more suitable than string map, string is really ought to be done with -strict). With those, I get this version which is relatively similar to what you already had yet ought to be substantially more performant.
package require Tcl 8.6
proc checkListNat {str} {
foreach l [split [string trim $str "()"] ","] {
if {[string is integer -strict $l] == 0} {
return 0
}
}
return 1
}
apply {{} {
set i 1
set fp [open "/tmp/test.txt" r]
while { [gets $fp data] >= 0 } {
if {[incr i] % 3 == 0 && ![checkListNat $data]} {
puts "error"
}
}
close $fp
}} {*}$argv
You might get better performance by adding fconfigure $fp -encoding iso8859-1; you'll have to test that yourself. But the key changes are the ones due to the bold items earlier, as each substantially impacts on the efficiency of compilation strategy used. (Also, Tcl 8.5 is a little faster than 8.6 — 8.6 has a radically different execution engine that is a bit slower for some things — so you might test the new code with 8.5 too; the code itself appears to be valid with both versions.)
try checking with regex {^[0-9,]+$} $line instead of the checkListNat function.
update
here is an example
echo "87,566, 45,67\n56,5r5,45" >! try
...
while {[gets $fp line] >0} {
if {[regexp {^[0-9]+$} $line] >0 } {
puts "OK $line"
} else {
puts "BAD $line"
}
}
gives:
>OK 87,566, 45,67
>BAD 56,5r5,45
I have a script that reads two csv files and compares them to find out if an ID that appears in one also appears in the other. The error I am receiving is as follows:
Out of memory during "large" request for 67112960 bytes, total sbrk() is 348203008 bytes
And now for the code:
use strict;
use File::Basename;
my $DAT = $ARGV[0];
my $OPT = $ARGV[1];
my $beg_doc = $ARGV[2];
my $end_doc = $ARGV[3];
my $doc_counter = 0;
my $page_counter = 0;
my %opt_beg_docs;
my %beg_docs;
my ($fname, $dir, $suffix) = fileparse($DAT, qr/\.[^.]*/);
my $outfile = $dir . $fname . "._IMGLOG";
open(OPT, "<$OPT");
while(<OPT>){
my #OPT_Line = split(/,/, $_);
$beg_docs{#OPT_Line[0]} = "Y" if(#OPT_Line[3] eq "Y");
$opt_beg_docs{#OPT_Line[0]} = "Y";
}
close(OPT);
open(OUT, ">$outfile");
while((my $key, my $value) = each %opt_beg_docs){
print OUT "$key\n";
}
close(OUT);
open(DAT, "<$DAT");
readline(DAT); #skips header line
while(<DAT>){
$_ =~ s/\xFE//g;
my #DAT_Line = split(/\x14/, $_);
#gets the prefix and the range of the beg and end docs
(my $pre = #DAT_Line[$beg_doc]) =~ s/[0-9]//g;
(my $beg = #DAT_Line[$beg_doc]) =~ s/\D//g;
(my $end = #DAT_Line[$end_doc]) =~ s/\D//g;
#print OUT "BEGDOC: $beg ENDDOC: $end\n";
foreach($beg .. $end){
my $doc_id = $pre . $_;
if($opt_beg_docs{$doc_id} ne "Y"){
if($beg_docs{$doc_id} ne "Y"){
print OUT "$doc_id,DOCUMENT NOT FOUND IN OPT FILE\n";
$doc_counter++;
} else {
print OUT "$doc_id,PAGE NOT FOUND IN OPT FILE\n";
$page_counter++;
}
}
}
}
close(DAT);
close(OUT);
print "Found $page_counter missing pages and $doc_counter missing document(s)";
Basically I get all the ID's from the file I am checking against to see if the ID exists in. Then I loop over the and generate the ID's for the other file, because they are presented as a range. Then I take the generated ID and check for it in the hash of ID's.
Also forgot to note I am using Windows
You're not using use warnings;, you're not checking for errors on opening files, and you're not printing out debugging statements showing the lines that you are reading in.
Do you know what the input file looks like? If it has no line breaks, you are reading the entire file in all at once, which will be disastrous if it is large. Pay attention to how you are parsing the file.
I'm not sure if it's the cause of your error, but inside your loop where you're reading DAT, you probably want to replace this:
(my $pre = #DAT_Line[$beg_doc]) =~ s/[0-9]//g;
with this:
(my $pre = $DAT_Line[$beg_doc]) =~ s/[0-9]//g;
and same for the other two lines there.
You're closing your OUT file handle and then trying to print to it inside the DAT loop, which, I think might be outputting to random memory, since you closed the FILEHANDLE - surprised this didn't output an error.
Remove the first close(OUT); and see if that improves.
I still don't know what your question is, if it's about the error message it means you've run out of memory. If it's about the message itself - you're trying to consume too much memory. If it's why you're consuming too much memory, I'd first ask if you read my message above, then I'd ask how much memory your system has, then I'd follow up with seeing if it improves if you take the regex away.