Skip to main content

list manipulation - Dramatic speed difference of code on Matlab and Mathematica



Background: I was trying to convert a Matlab code (fluid simulation, SPH method) into a Mathematica one, but the speed difference is huge.


Matlab code:


function s = initializeDensity2(s)
nTotal   = s.params.nTotal;  %# particles
h    = s.params.h;
h2Sq = (2*h)^2;
for ind1 = 1:nTotal  %loop over all receiving particles; one at a time
%particle i is the receiving particle; the host particle
%particle j is the sending particle
xi = s.particles.pos(ind1,1);

yi = s.particles.pos(ind1,2);
xj = s.particles.pos(:,1); %all others
yj = s.particles.pos(:,2); %all others
mj = s.particles.mass; %all others
rSq = (xi-xj).^2+(yi-yj).^2;
%Boolean mask returns values where r^2 < (2h)^2
mask1 = rSqrSq   = rSq(mask1);
mTemp = mj(mask1);
densityTemp = mTemp.*liuQuartic(sqrt(rSq),h);

s.particles.density(ind1) = sum(densityTemp);
end

And the corresponding Mathematica code:


Needs["HierarchicalClustering`"]
computeDistance[pos_] := 
DistanceMatrix[pos, DistanceFunction -> EuclideanDistance];
initializeDensity[distance_] := 
uniMass*Total/@(liuQuartic[#,h]&/@Pick[distance,Boole[Map[#<2h&,distance,{2}]],1])
initializeDensity[computeDistance[totalPos]]


The data are coordinates of 1119 points, in the form of {{x1,y1},{x2,y2}...}, stored in s.particles.pos and totalPos respectively. And liuQuartic is just a polynomial function. The complete Matlab code is way more than this, but it can run about 160 complete time steps in 60 seconds, whereas the Mathematica code listed above alone takes about 3 seconds to run. I don't know why there is such huge speed difference. Any thoughts is appreciated. Thanks.


Edit:


The liuQuartic is defined as


liuQuartic[r_,h_]:=15/(7Pi*h^2) (2/3-(9r^2)/(8h^2)+(19r^3)/(24h^3)-(5r^4)/(32h^4))

and example data can be obtained by


h=2*10^-3;conWidth=0.4;conHeight=0.16;totalStep=6000;uniDensity=1000;uniMass=1000*Pi*h^2;refDensity=1400;gamma=7;vf=0.07;eta=0.01;cs=vf/eta;B=refDensity*cs^2/gamma;gravity=-9.8;mu=0.02;beta=0.15;dt=0.00005;epsilon=0.5;

iniFreePts=Block[{},Table[{-conWidth/3+i,1.95h+j},{i,10h,conWidth/3-2h,1.5h},{j,0,0.05,1.5h}]//Flatten[#,1]&];

leftWallIniPts=Block[{x,y},y=Table[i,{i,conHeight/2-0.5h,0.2h,-0.5h}];x=ConstantArray[-conWidth/3,Length[y]];Thread[List[x,y]]];
botWallIniPts=Block[{x,y},x=Table[i,{i,-conWidth/3,-0.4h,h}];y=ConstantArray[0,Length[x]];Thread[List[x,y]]];
incWallIniPts=Block[{x,y},Table[{i,0.2125i},{i,0,(2conWidth)/3,h}]];
rightWallIniPts=Block[{x,y},y=Table[i,{i,Last[incWallIniPts][[2]]+h,conHeight/2,h}];x=ConstantArray[Last[incWallIniPts][[1]],Length[y]];Thread[List[x,y]]];
topWallIniPts=Block[{x,y},x=Table[i,{i,-conWidth/3+0.7h,(2conWidth)/3-0.7h,h}];y=ConstantArray[conHeight/2,Length[x]];Thread[List[x,y]]];
freePos = iniFreePts;
wallPos = leftWallIniPts~Join~botWallIniPts~Join~incWallIniPts~Join~rightWallIniPts~Join~topWallIniPts;
totalPos = freePos~Join~wallPos;

where conWidth=0.4, conHeight=0.16 and h=0.002




Answer



Modify the calculation order a little to avoid ragged array and then make use of Listable and Compile:


computeDistance[pos_] := DistanceMatrix[pos, DistanceFunction -> EuclideanDistance]
liuQuartic = {r, h} \[Function] 
   15/(7 Pi*h^2) (2/3 - (9 r^2)/(8 h^2) + (19 r^3)/(24 h^3) - (5 r^4)/(32 h^4));
initializeDensity = 
  With[{l = liuQuartic, m = uniMass}, 
   Compile[{{d, _Real, 2}, {h, _Real}}, m Total@Transpose[l[d, h] UnitStep[2 h - d]]]];
new = initializeDensity[computeDistance[N@totalPos], h]; // AbsoluteTiming


Tested with your new added sample data, my code ran for 0.390000 s while the original code ran for 4.851600 s and ybeltukov's code ran for 0.813200 s on my machine.


If you have a C compiler installed, the following code


computeDistance[pos_] := DistanceMatrix[pos, DistanceFunction -> EuclideanDistance]
liuQuartic = {r, h} \[Function] 
   15/(7 Pi*h^2) (2/3 - (9 r^2)/(8 h^2) + (19 r^3)/(24 h^3) - (5 r^4)/(32 h^4));
initializeDensity = 
  With[{l = liuQuartic, m = uniMass, g = Compile`GetElement}, 
   Compile[{{d, _Real, 2}, {h, _Real}}, 
    Module[{b1, b2}, {b1, b2} = Dimensions@d; 
     m Table[Sum[If[2 h > g[d, i, j], l[g[d, i, j], h], 0.], {j, b2}], {i, b1}]], 

      CompilationTarget -> "C", RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"]];

will give you a 2X speedup once again. Notice the C compiler is necessary, see this post for some more details.


Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

How to remap graph properties?

Graph objects support both custom properties, which do not have special meanings, and standard properties, which may be used by some functions. When importing from formats such as GraphML, we usually get a result with custom properties. What is the simplest way to remap one property to another, e.g. to remap a custom property to a standard one so it can be used with various functions? Example: Let's get Zachary's karate club network with edge weights and vertex names from here: http://nexus.igraph.org/api/dataset_info?id=1&format=html g = Import[ "http://nexus.igraph.org/api/dataset?id=1&format=GraphML", {"ZIP", "karate.GraphML"}] I can remap "name" to VertexLabels and "weights" to EdgeWeight like this: sp[prop_][g_] := SetProperty[g, prop] g2 = g // sp[EdgeWeight -> (PropertyValue[{g, #}, "weight"] & /@ EdgeList[g])] // sp[VertexLabels -> (# -> PropertyValue[{g, #}, "name"]...
Post a Comment
Read more