Skip to main content

performance tuning - Adding three integer sparse matrices is very slow. Adding only two is fast


Bug introduced in 9.0.0 and fixed in 10.0.0



Adding more than two sparse matrices in one step in Mathematica 9 is very slow (in fact I couldn't even wait for it to finish).


Here's an example. Let's generate a large sparse matrix:


am = AdjacencyMatrix@RandomGraph[{25000, 50000}];

am + am; // Timing (* very fast *)

(am + am) + am; // Timing (* very fast *)


am + am + am; // Timing (* so slow I didn't wait for it to finish *)

Can anyone reproduce this? I used Mathematica 9.0.0 on OS X. Mathematica 8 does not have this problem.


Does anyone have any ideas what may be going wrong here?



Answer



I have reported this as a bug. Having said that, here is some more info:


Note that when you use:


am = AdjacencyMatrix@RandomGraph[{25000, 50000}];//N


you do not see the issue. So this is only an integer sparse array issue. What happened until V8 internally is that there is a loop for adding each sparse array as a binary operation. E.g. something like:


res = Plus[Plus[sp1,sp2],sp3]

In version 9 this has been changed to use var args. In essence what you do with using parentheses is to enforce the old behavior. The reason this was changed is that the var args form of the code is faster and uses less memory:


am = (AdjacencyMatrix@RandomGraph[{2500, 5000}]) // N;
MaxMemoryUsed[am + am; // Timing] (*very fast*)
MaxMemoryUsed[(am + am) + am; // Timing] (*very fast*)
MaxMemoryUsed[
 am + am + am; // Timing] (*so slow I didn't wait for it to finish*)


So for now you can either convert with N if that is possible, or use the parentheses.


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