Skip to main content

performance tuning - Are there rules of thumb for knowing when RandomVariate is more efficient than RandomReal?


Please consider the following:


From a fresh Mathematica kernel, RandomVariate is more efficient for NormalDistribution but RandomReal is for uniformly distributed noise.


RandomReal[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing


{0.00535, Null}



RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing



{0.000069, Null}



RandomReal[{0, 1}, 100]; // Timing


{0.00004, Null}



RandomVariate[UniformDistribution[], 100]; // Timing



{0.005236, Null}



But if I re-evaluate, I get Timing results that are much more similar:


RandomReal[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing


{0.000051, Null}



RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing



{0.000052, Null}



RandomReal[{0, 1}, 100]; // Timing


{0.00003, Null}



RandomVariate[UniformDistribution[], 100]; // Timing



{0.000058, Null}



Does caching the distribution definition really matter that much?


Obviously RandomVariate has the advantage that it can generate data from mixed (not only fully continuous or fully discrete) distributions. So it is more general. But if one is generating random numbers from standard distributions like the normal or the Poisson, is there any advantage – performance or otherwise – to using RandomVariate instead of RandomReal or RandomInteger?



Answer



In general you should use RandomVariate for distributions and RandomReal for uniforms. Often RandomVariate calls RandomReal or RandomInteger under the hood but it varies on a distribution by distribution basis. After loading any necessary symbols, on evaluation, any timing differences should be negligible.


RandomVariate is intended to give the flexibility to not have to think of whether the distribution is continuous or discrete (or mixed), it has also been optimized for each distribution in the system. One should always be able to use RandomInteger or RandomReal if the type is known ahead of time (and is not mixed or fuzzy in some way e.g. EmpiricalDistribution) but again, most of the overhead is in initializing the generator so if you are generating a large number of random numbers you shouldn't notice a big difference in timings after evaluating both RandomVariate and RandomReal/RandomInteger.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

How to thread a list

I have data in format data = {{a1, a2}, {b1, b2}, {c1, c2}, {d1, d2}} Tableform: I want to thread it to : tdata = {{{a1, b1}, {a2, b2}}, {{a1, c1}, {a2, c2}}, {{a1, d1}, {a2, d2}}} Tableform: And I would like to do better then pseudofunction[n_] := Transpose[{data2[[1]], data2[[n]]}]; SetAttributes[pseudofunction, Listable]; Range[2, 4] // pseudofunction Here is my benchmark data, where data3 is normal sample of real data. data3 = Drop[ExcelWorkBook[[Column1 ;; Column4]], None, 1]; data2 = {a #, b #, c #, d #} & /@ Range[1, 10^5]; data = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {10^6, 4}]; Here is my benchmark code kptnw[list_] := Transpose[{Table[First@#, {Length@# - 1}], Rest@#}, {3, 1, 2}] &@list kptnw2[list_] := Transpose[{ConstantArray[First@#, Length@# - 1], Rest@#}, {3, 1, 2}] &@list OleksandrR[list_] := Flatten[Outer[List, List@First[list], Rest[list], 1], {{2}, {1, 4}}] paradox2[list_] := Partition[Riffle[list[[1]], #], 2] & /@ Drop[list, 1] RM[list_] := FoldList[Transpose[{First@li...

front end - keyboard shortcut to invoke Insert new matrix

I frequently need to type in some matrices, and the menu command Insert > Table/Matrix > New... allows matrices with lines drawn between columns and rows, which is very helpful. I would like to make a keyboard shortcut for it, but cannot find the relevant frontend token command (4209405) for it. Since the FullForm[] and InputForm[] of matrices with lines drawn between rows and columns is the same as those without lines, it's hard to do this via 3rd party system-wide text expanders (e.g. autohotkey or atext on mac). How does one assign a keyboard shortcut for the menu item Insert > Table/Matrix > New... , preferably using only mathematica? Thanks! Answer In the MenuSetup.tr (for linux located in the $InstallationDirectory/SystemFiles/FrontEnd/TextResources/X/ directory), I changed the line MenuItem["&New...", "CreateGridBoxDialog"] to read MenuItem["&New...", "CreateGridBoxDialog", MenuKey["m", Modifiers-...