Skip to main content

performance tuning - Speedup matrix number multiplication



Consider this simple matrix number multiplication:


lth = 200;
mtx = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {lth, lth}];
ls = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {lth}];

Et = Function[{t}, Sin[(Ï€ t)/20] Sin[2 t]];
Etc = Compile[{{t, _Real}}, Et[t], 
   CompilationOptions -> {"InlineCompiledFunctions" -> True, 
     "InlineExternalDefinitions" -> True}];



Table[Etc[t]*mtx;, {t, 0., 20, 0.01}]; // AbsoluteTiming
(* {0.244659, Null} *)

It seems that this is very slow, compared to matrix vector multiplication:


Table[mtx.ls;, {t, 0., 20, 0.01}]; // AbsoluteTiming
(* {0.038151, Null} *)

Moreover, the matrix addition also seems to be slow


Table[mtx + mtx;, {t, 0., 20, 0.01}]; // AbsoluteTiming

(* {0.153648, Null} *)

Question: So why the matrix number multiplication and addition so much slower than the matrix vector multiplication? Are there ways to speed them up?


I'm using 10.3 on OS X 10.11.4.



Edit


The slowness of the matrix number multiplication doesn't seem to come from Etc, for example:


Table[Etc[t];, {t, 0., 20, 0.01}]; // AbsoluteTiming
(* {0.001614, Null} *)


Table[1.*mtx;, {t, 0., 20, 0.01}]; // AbsoluteTiming
(* {0.235871, Null} *)


Edit 2


Here is a comparison to Matlab:


lth=200;
mtx=rand(lth);
ls=rand(lth,1);



tic;
for t=0:0.01:20
mtx2=1.*mtx;
end
toc


tic;
for t=0:0.01:20

mtx2=mtx*ls;
end
toc


Elapsed time is 0.034530 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.015745 seconds.

Mathematica is as fast as Matlab in matrix vector multiplication, but about 7X slower in the matrix number multiplication.




Edit 3


Here are more detailed comparisons between Mathematica and Matlab for matrix number multiplication and matrix vector multiplication, for different problem size.


Compare α*A, where α is a scalar and A is a matrix


enter image description here


Here is a comparison of for the spare array method suggested by Anton Antonov:


enter image description here


It seems that even using the sparse array method, Mathematica is still way too slow than Matlab in this operation, especially looking at cases with large matrix size.


Compare A.v, where v is a vector and A is a matrix


enter image description here


It seems that Mathematica has a much closer performance to Matlab in the matrix vector mulplitcation than that of the matrix number multiplication.



I'm happy about the <2X slowness in the matrix vector multiplication, but the slowness of the matrix number multiplication seems to me like something is not working properly, given that this operation is so fundamental that it should have been optimized at an early stage.


code used for comparison


(*===Mathematica functions ====*)
matrixScaling[lth_] := Module[{mtx},
  mtx = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {lth, lth}];
  First@AbsoluteTiming[Table[1.*mtx;, {2000}];]/2000/lth
  ]
matrixScaling2[lth_] := Module[{mtx, sp},
  mtx = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {lth, lth}];
  First@AbsoluteTiming[

      Table[sp = SparseArray[{_, _} -> 1., Dimensions[mtx]]; 
        sp*mtx;, {2000}];]/2000/lth
  ]
matrixDot[lth_] := Module[{mtx, ls},
  mtx = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {lth, lth}];
  ls = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {lth}];
  First@AbsoluteTiming[Table[mtx.ls;, {2000}];]/2000/lth
  ]



(*===Matlab functions ====*)
Needs["MATLink`"]
OpenMATLAB[]

FilePrint["~/Documents/MATLAB/matrix_scale.m"]
(*
function time = matrix_scale( lth )

mtx=rand(lth);
tic;

for i=0:2000
mtx2=1.*mtx;
end
time=toc;
time=time/lth/2000;
end
*)

FilePrint["~/Documents/MATLAB/matrix_dot.m"]
(*

function time = matrix_dot( lth )

mtx=rand(lth);
ls=rand(lth,1);
tic;
for i=0:2000
mtx2=mtx*ls;
end
time=toc;
time=time/lth/2000;

end
*)

(*====comparison ====*)
nls = Range[100, 1000, 100];
timeScaleMMA = matrixScaling /@ nls;
timeScaleMMA2 = matrixScaling2 /@ nls;
timeDotMMA = matrixDot /@ nls;

matrixScaleMatlab = MFunction["matrix_scale"];

matrixDotMatlab = MFunction["matrix_dot"];
timeScaleMatlab = matrixScaleMatlab /@ nls;
timeDotMatlab = matrixDotMatlab /@ nls;

(*===plot results ===*)

BarChart[1.*^6 Transpose@{timeScaleMMA, timeScaleMatlab}, 
 ChartLabels -> {Range[100, 1000, 100], None}, 
 PlotTheme -> "Detailed", 
 FrameLabel -> {"matrix size", "time (μs)"}, 

 ChartLegends -> {"Mathematica", "Matlab"}, ImageSize -> 400, 
 AspectRatio -> 1/GoldenRatio]

BarChart[1.*^6 Transpose@{timeScaleMMA, timeScaleMMA2, 
    timeScaleMatlab}, ChartLabels -> {Range[100, 1000, 100], None}, 
 PlotTheme -> "Detailed", 
 FrameLabel -> {"matrix size", "time (μs)"}, 
 ChartLegends -> {"Mathematica", "Mathematica sparse array", 
   "Matlab"}, ImageSize -> Medium]


BarChart[1.*^6 Transpose@{timeDotMMA, timeDotMatlab}, 
 ChartLabels -> {Range[100, 1000, 100], None}, 
 PlotTheme -> "Detailed", 
 FrameLabel -> {"matrix size", "time (μs)"}, 
 ChartLegends -> {"Mathematica", "Matlab"}, ImageSize -> 400, 
 AspectRatio -> 1/GoldenRatio]


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more