Skip to main content

list manipulation - Bad performance of LengthWhile?


The performance of LengthWhile has been improved in v11.1, now the lengthwhile below is no longer faster.



A friend of mine showed me this example, it's a test comparing LengthWhile to a self-made lengthwhile written in a direct and conventional way:


lengthwhile[x_, t_] := Module[{i = 0, l = Length@x}, While[i < l && t@x[[i + 1]], i++]; i]

lst = RandomInteger[{-2, 2}, {10^4, 10}];
rst1 = LengthWhile[#, # >= 0 &] & /@ lst; // AbsoluteTiming

rst2 = lengthwhile[#, # >= 0 &] & /@ lst; // AbsoluteTiming
rst1 == rst2


{3.941000, Null}
{0.474000, Null}
True

LengthWhile is much slower than the reinvented wheel! Why? Simply a bad performance of LengthWhile? Or LengthWhile isn't used in a proper way?



Answer




There are several reasons. Firstly the built-in function has some minor overhead to check the arguments and call the appropriate internal function depending on whether the first argument is a list, a sparse array or an association.


Secondly, with a packed array, LengthWhile uses compilation in an attempt to increase performance. There is some overhead in evaluating Compile, which is especially noticeable for your example with many small lists. (Note that if you do lst2 = Developer`FromPackedArray[lst] the built-in LengthWhile is faster than it is on the packed list.)


Finally, there appears to be a bug in the implementation of the compilation, such that the compiled function calls back to the main evaluator for the predicate function. You can see this by capturing the CompiledFunction from a Trace and examining it with CompilePrint:


Needs["CompiledFunctionTools`"];

CompilePrint @@ Cases[Trace[LengthWhile[lst[[1]], # >= 0 &]], _CompiledFunction, -1, 1]


blah...
7 B2 = MainEvaluate[ Hold[Statistics`TakeWhileDump`predfun$42706][I5]]

blah...

The internal function calling Compile is Statistics`TakeWhileDump`findLastPosition. It appears that the predicate function is not being inlined as we would desire (despite "InlineExternalDefinitions" being used). I'm not sure what the rules are about inlining external definitions, so I'm not sure if this is due to a change in Compile or bad code in Statistics`TakeWhileDump`findLastPosition.


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