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

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Adding a thick curve to a regionplot

Suppose we have the following simple RegionPlot: f[x_] := 1 - x^2 g[x_] := 1 - 0.5 x^2 RegionPlot[{y < f[x], f[x] < y < g[x], y > g[x]}, {x, 0, 2}, {y, 0, 2}] Now I'm trying to change the curve defined by $y=g[x]$ into a thick black curve, while leaving all other boundaries in the plot unchanged. I've tried adding the region $y=g[x]$ and playing with the plotstyle, which didn't work, and I've tried BoundaryStyle, which changed all the boundaries in the plot. Now I'm kinda out of ideas... Any help would be appreciated! Answer With f[x_] := 1 - x^2 g[x_] := 1 - 0.5 x^2 You can use Epilog to add the thick line: RegionPlot[{y < f[x], f[x] < y < g[x], y > g[x]}, {x, 0, 2}, {y, 0, 2}, PlotPoints -> 50, Epilog -> (Plot[g[x], {x, 0, 2}, PlotStyle -> {Black, Thick}][[1]]), PlotStyle -> {Directive[Yellow, Opacity[0.4]], Directive[Pink, Opacity[0.4]],