so i’m making a simulation (billiard) in Python that needs to do a lot of updates per second. I know that division (or multiplying by decimal) is one of the slower operations. I was just wondering if that only goes for more “abstract” divisions (ex: ‘173/82’) or if it also goes for “easier” divisions, halving float or dividing by 10.
For extra info, it is for microstepping (getting a more accurate point of collision) so I’ll be dividing the speed. If it is costly to divide by 2 and 10, I’m thinking about precalculating the smaller speeds (on change of the balls speed), but please do suggest if there might be a better way.
Thanks for reading:)
Python is a very high level language which abstracts away floating point numbers as full objects. This kind of micro-optimization does not make sense in plain Python code.
If you are down to the algorithm you have to optimize in a few plain operations, one of the steps you could take is to promote the function where the calculation is to a helper framework that will run that code in native code, such as cython or numba. Cython, for example, will feature the same syntax as Python and be callable from ordinary Python code, but will be able to use the native CPU floating point implementation for the operations. Numba may be even simpler, requiring simply that the most critical functions be properly decorated.
If the results are to be consumed from and go into an array, you won't even have the language overhead of converting the value to a Python float instance or each data point.
Best way is to try it, just write a few lines of test code and loop over it a few million times. That's the beauty of Python, you can try things quickly.
Under the covers, the Python interpreter is doing a lot of work and the actual division itself will likely be a small component of the time.
Once the algorithm is right, you might try writing custom functions or classes for Python, in C. I've done this for Monte-Carlo simulation that has to handle millions of events per second.
Related
I am using scipy.stats.mode to calculate the mode of a list of numbers. The mode gets calculated very quickly when the numbers are a bunch of floats (using the built-in float) but is much slower when the numbers are a bunch of decimal.Decimals. What's a fast (or faster) way to calculate the mode of a bunch of Decimals?
First, Decimals are inherently slower than floats, because all of the logic is implemented in Python with a bit of C acceleration, instead of in custom circuitry on your CPU.
Plus, if you've put them in a NumPy array, NumPy doesn't know anything about the Decimal type, so it has to store them as drtype=object, which means references to normal Python objects that have to be unboxed for every operation. By contrast, float values can be stored with dtype=float, which means they're just raw IEEE doubles that can be used directly (or even CPU-vectorized to process multiple values at a time).
So, I'd expect it to be about an order of magnitude or so slower. And when I run a quick test, it takes a bit over as long.
Second, scipy.stats.mode is inherently slow if you have a lot of unique elements.
And, even if you don't, it's still doing extra work for extra features you may not need.
Anyway, you don't need to do any math to calculate the mode, just compare values for equality.
And we're not getting any benefit out of NumPy anywhere else.
So, simpler, less-powerful, non-NumPy solutions might actually be faster.
If you actually need any the features of scipy.stats.mode, that doesn't help you. For example, it can return multiple results if there are equally-common values; it gives the mode's count as well as the mode; it knows how to skip over NaN values instead of just telling you the mode is NaN; etc.
If you need any of the scipy features, you might want to consider building a mode replacement out of find_repeats, as described here. This seems to be roughly 5x as fast as mode even in a fair case, and to not degenerate when there are tons of uniques. So, even adding the 10x cost for using Decimal, it still ends up pretty fast.
But if you don't need them?
statistics.mode(a) is actually slightly faster than scipy.stats.mode even on the fair case even on an array of floats. And, instead of taking 10x as long if you give it Decimals, it takes about the same amount of time.
collections.Counter(a).most_common(1) is only about 50% slower than statistics.mode, and again doesn't slow down with Decimals.
The point is, either of the obvious stdlib solutions outperforms scipy on Decimal values, by about 10x or 7x, on what seemed like a fair test. And if I craft a worst-case-for-scipy test where almost all of the values are unique, scipy.stats.mode becomes roughly 10x slower again, while the plain Python solutions don't slow down at all.
Anyway, for this case, the times are much more sensitive to details of the input data than for most. So, instead of posting benchmarks with a caveat that you really want to test against your actual data (knowing that half the readers aren't going to and are just going to take my benchmarks as meaningful), I'm going to keep my benchmarks to myself and insist that you really, really, really want to test against your own actual data.
Recently I have been revising some of my old python codes, which are essentially loops of algebra, in order to have them execute faster, generally by eliminating some un-necessary operations. Often, changing the value of an entry in a list from 0 (as a python float, which I believe is a double by default) to the same value, which is obviously not necessary. Or, checking if a float is equal to something, when it MUST be that thing, because a preceeding "if" would not have triggered if it wasn't, or some other extraneous operation. This got me wondering about what will preserve my battery more, as I do a some of my coding on the bus where I can't plug my laptop in.
For example, which of the following two operations would be expected to use less battery power?
if b != 0: #b was assigned previously, and I know it is zero already
b = 0
or:
b = 0
The first one checks if b is zero, and it is, so it doesn't do the next part. The second one just assigns b to zero without bothering to check. I believe the first one is more time-efficient, as you don't have to change anything in memory. Is that correct, and if so, would it also be more power-efficient? Does "more time efficient" always imply "more power efficient"?
I suggest watching this talk by Chandler Carruth: "Efficiency with Algorithms, Performance with Data Structures"
He addresses the idea of "Power efficient instructions" at 4m 49s in the video. I agree with him, thinking about how much watt particular code consumes is useless. As he put it
Q: "How to save battery life?"
A: "Finish ruining the program".
Also, in Python you do not have low level control to be even thinking about low level problems like this. Use appropriate data structures and algorithms, and pray that Python interpreter will give you well optimized byte-code.
Does every simple mathematical operation use the same amount of power (as in, battery power)?
No. It's not the same to compute a two number addition than a fourier transform of a 20 megapixel photo.
I believe the first one is more time-efficient, as you don't have to change anything in memory. Is that correct, and if so, would it also be more power-efficient? Does "more time efficient" always imply "more power efficient"?
Yes. You are right on your intuitions but these are very trivial examples. And if you dig deeper you will get into uncharted territory of weird optimization that's quite difficult to grasp (e.g., see this question: Times two faster than bit shift?)
In general the more your code utilizes system resources the greater power those resources would use. However it is more useful to optimize your code based on time or size constraints instead of thinking about high level code in terms of power draw.
One way of doing this is Big O notation. In essence, Big O notation is a way of comparing the size and or runtime complexity of an algorithm. https://rob-bell.net/2009/06/a-beginners-guide-to-big-o-notation/
A computer at its lowest level is large quantity of transistors which require power to change and maintain their state.
It would be extremely difficult to anticipate how much power any one line of python code would draw.
I once had questions like this. Still do sometimes. Here's the answer I wish someone told me earlier.
Summary
You are correct that generally, if your computer does less work, it'll use less power.
But we have to be really careful in figuring out which logical operations involve more work and which ones involve less work - in this case:
Reading vs writing memory is usually the same amount of work.
if and any other conditional execution also costs work.
Python's "simple operations" are not "simple operations" for the CPU.
But the idea you had is probably correct for some cases you had in mind.
If you're concerned about power consumption, measure where power is being used.
For some perspective: You're asking about which Python code costs you one more drop of water, but really in Python every operation costs a bucket and your whole Python program is using a river and your computer as a whole is using an ocean.
Direct Answers
Don't apply these answers to Python yet. Read the rest of the answer first, because there's so much indirection between Python and the CPU that you'll mislead yourself about how they're connected if you don't take that into account.
I believe the first one is more time-efficient, as you don't have to change anything in memory.
As a general rule, reading memory is just as slow as writing to memory, or even slower depending on exactly what your computer is doing. For further reading you'll want to look into CPU memory cache levels, memory access times, and how out-of-order execution and data dependencies factor into modern CPU architectures.
As a general rule, the if statement in a language is itself an operation which can have a non-negligible cost. For further reading you should look into how CPU pipelining relates to branch prediction and branch penalties. Also look into how if statements are implemented in typical CPU instruction sets.
Does "more time efficient" always imply "more power efficient"?
As a general rule, more work efficient (doing less work - less machine instructions, for example) implies more power efficient, because on modern hardware (this wasn't always this way) your hardware will use less power when it's not doing anything.
You should be careful about the idea of "more time efficient" though, because modern hardware doesn't always execute the same amount of work in the same amount of time: for further reading you'll want to look into CPU frequency scaling, ARM's big.LITTLE architectures, and discussions about the "Race to Idle" concept as a starting point.
"One Simple Operation" - CPU vs. Python
Your question is about Python, so it's important to realize that Python's x != 0, if, and x = 0 do not map directly to simple operations in the CPU.
For further reading, especially if you're familiar with C, I would recommend taking a long look at how Python is implemented. There are many implementations - the main one is CPython, which is a C program that reads and interprets Python source, converts it into Python "bytecode" and then when running interprets that bytecode one by one.
As a baseline, if you're using Python, any one "simple" operation is actually a lot of CPU operations, as each step in the Python interpreter is multiple CPU operations, but which ones cost more might be surprising.
Let's break down the three used in our example (I'm primarily describing this from the perspective of the main Python implementation written in C, called "CPython", which I am the most closely familiar with, but in general this explanation is roughly applicable to all of them, though some will be able to optimize out certain steps):
x != 0
It looks like a simple operation, and if this was C and x was an int it would be just one machine instruction - but Python allows for operator overloading, so first Python has to:
look up x (at least one memory read, but may involve one or more hashmap lookups in Python's internals, which is many machine operations),
check the type of x (more memory reading),
based on the type look up a function pointer that implements the not-equality operation (one or arbitrarily many memory reads and one or more arbitrarily many conditional branches, with data dependencies between them),
only then it can finally call that function with references to Python objects holding the values of x and 0 (which is also not "free" - look up function calling ABI for more on that).
All that and more has to be done by the CPU even if x is a Python int or float mapping closely to the CPU's native numerical data types.
x = 0
An assignment is actually far cheaper in Python (though still not trivial): it only has to get as far as step 1 above, because once it knows "where" x is, it can just overwrite that pointer with the pointer to the Python object representing 0.
if
Abstractly speaking, the Python if statement has to be able to handle "truthy" and "falsey" values, which in the most naive implementation would involves running through more CPU instructions to evaluate what result of the condition is according to Python's semantics of what's true and what's false.
Sidenote About Optimizations
Different Python implementations go to different lengths to get Python operations closer to as few CPU operations in possible. For example, an optimizing JIT (Just In Time) compiler might notice that, inside some loop on an array, all elements of the array are native integers and actually reduce the if x != 0 and x = 0 parts into their respective minimal machine instructions, but that only happens in very specific circumstances when the optimizing logic can prove that it can safely bypass a lot of the behavior it would normally need to do.
The biggest thing here is this: a high-level language like Python is so removed from the hardware that "simple" operations are often complex "under the covers".
What You Asked vs. What I Think You Wanted To Ask
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect the use-case you actually had in mind was this:
if x != 0:
# some code
x = 0
vs. this:
if x != 0:
# some code
x = 0
In that case, the first option is superior to the second, because you are already paying the cost of if x != 0 anyway.
Last Point of Emphasis
The hardest breakthrough for me was moving away from trying to reason about individual instructions in my head, and instead switching into looking at how things work and measuring real systems.
Looking at how things work will teach you how to optimize, but measuring will show you where to optimize.
This question is great for exploring the former, but for your stated motivation of reducing power consumption on your laptop, you would benefit more from the latter.
i am working on a simple showcase SPH (smoothed particle hydrodynamics, not relevant here though) implementation in python. The code works, but the execution is kinda sluggish. I often have to compare individual particles with a certain amount of neighbours. In an earlier implementation i kept all particle positions and all distances-to-each-existing-particle in large numpy arrays -> to a certain point this was pretty fast. But visually not pleasing and n**2. Now i want it clean and simple with classes + kdTree to speed up the neighbour search.
this all happens in my global Simulation-Class. Additionally there's a class called "particle" that contains all individual informations. i create hundreds of instances before and loop through them.
def calculate_density(self):
#Using scipys advanced nearest neighbour seach magic
tree = scipy.spatial.KDTree(self.particle_positions)
#here we go... loop through all existing particles. set attributes..
for particle in self.my_particles:
#get the indexes for the nearest neighbours
particle.index_neighbours = tree.query_ball_point(particle.position,self.h,p=2)
#now loop through the list of neighbours and perform some additional math
particle.density = 0
for neighbour in particle.index_neighbours:
r = np.linalg.norm(particle.position - self.my_particles[neighbour].position)
particle.density += particle.mass * (315/(64*math.pi*self.h**9)) *(self.h**2-r**2)**3
i timed 0.2717630863189697s for only 216 particles.
Now i wonder: what to do to speed it up?
Most tools online like "Numba" show how they speed up math-heavy individual functions. I dont know which to choose. On a sidenode, i cannot even get Numba to work in this case. I get a looong error message. And i hoped it is as simple as slapping "#jit" in front of it.
I know its the loops with the attribute calls that crush my performance anyway - not the math or the neighbour search. Sadly iam a novice to programming and i liked the clean approach i got to work here :( any thoughts?
These kind of loop-intensive calculations are slow in Python. In these cases, the first thing you want to do is to see if you can vectorize these operations and get rid of the loops. Then actual calculations will be done in C or Fortran libraries and you will get a lot of speed up. If you can do it usually this is the way to go, since it is much easier to maintain your code.
Some operations, however, are just inherently loop-intensive. In these cases using Cython will help you a lot - you can usually expect 60X+ speed up when you cythonize your loop. I also had similar experiences with numba - when my function becomes complicated, it failed to make it faster, so usually I just use Cython.
Coding in Cython is not too bad - much easier than actually code in C because you can access numpy arrays easily via memoryviews. Another advantage is that it is pretty easy to parallelize the loop with openMP, which can gives you additional 4X+ speedups (of course, depending on the number of cores you have in your machine), so your code can be hundreds times faster.
One issue is that to get the optimal speed, you have to remove all the python calls inside your loop, which means you cannot call numpy/scipy functions. So you have to convert tree.query_ball_point and np.linalg.norm part to Cython for optimal speed.
In a game that I am writing, I use a 2D vector class which I have written to handle the speeds of the objects. This is called a large number of times every frame as there are a lot of objects on the screen, so any increase I can make in its speed will be useful.
It is pretty simple, consisting mostly of wrappers to the related math functions. It would be quite trivial to rewrite in C, but I am not sure whether doing so will make any significant difference as all it really does is call the underlying math functions, add, multiply or divide.
So, my question is under what circumstances does it make sense to rewrite in C? Where will you see a significant speed boost, and where can you see a reasonable speed boost without rewriting an extensive amount of the program?
If you're vector-munging, give numpy a try first. Chances are you will get speeds not far from C if you utilize numpy's vector manipulation functions wisely.
Other than that, your question is very heuristic. If your code is too slow:
Profile it - chances are you'll be able to improve it in Python
Use the correct optimized C-based libraries (numpy in your case)
Try psyco
Try rewriting parts with cython
If all else fails, rewrite in C
First measure then optimize
You should never optimize anything, be it in C or any other language, without timing your code before and after your optimization:
your clever optimization could in fact induce a slow down
optimizing something that takes 1% of the total execution time will never give you more than 1% performance
The common approach is:
profile your code
identify a hotspot
time this hotspot
optimize it
time the hotspot again, see if it's faster. If it's not goto 3.
If you can't find hotspots it could mean that your app is already optimized, or that you are not using the good algorithm for your problem. In both cases profiling helps understanding what your code does.
For profiling python code under Linux, you can use pyprof2calltree which works in conjunction with kcachegrind, and is totally awesome.
Common wisdom is "profile", "measure", etc. Well - maybe. Just get in the debugger and take 10 stackshots. If more than one of them terminates in your wrapper code, then it is costing more than 10% roughly, so you should consider re-doing it in C, to save that time. Chances are you will find other things also that are costing more than that.
A nice Profiler I use on Linux is pycallgraph - however, as your program gets bigger it starts to create much larger images which are harder to trace. I'm pretty sure you can exclude modules, though.
I'm working in the Google App Engine environment and programming in Python. I am creating a function that essentially generates a random number/letter string and then stores to the memcache.
def generate_random_string():
# return a random 6-digit long string
def check_and_store_to_memcache():
randomstring = generate_random_string()
#check against memcache
#if ok, then store key value with another value
#if not ok, run generate_random_string() again and check again.
Does creating two functions instead of just one big one affect performance? I prefer two, as it better matches how I think, but don't mind combining them if that's "best practice".
Focus on being able to read and easily understand your code.
Once you've done this, if you have a performance problem, then look into what might be causing it.
Most languages, python included, tend to have fairly low overhead for making method calls. Putting this code into a single function is not going to (dramatically) change the performance metrics - I'd guess that your random number generation will probably be the bulk of the time, not having 2 functions.
That being said, splitting functions does have a (very, very minor) impact on performance. However, I'd think of it this way - it may take you from going 80 mph on the highway to 79.99mph (which you'll never really notice). The important things to watch for are avoiding stoplights and traffic jams, since they're going to make you have to stop altogether...
In almost all cases, "inlining" functions to increase speed is like getting a hair cut to lose weight.
Reed is right. For the change you're considering, the cost of a function call is a small number of cycles, and you'd have to be doing it 10^8 or so times per second before you'd notice.
However, I would caution that often people go to the other extreme, and then it is as if function calls were costly. I've seen this in over-designed systems where there were many layers of abstraction.
What happens is there is some human psychology that says if something is easy to call, then it is fast. This leads to writing more function calls than strictly necessary, and when this occurs over multiple layers of abstraction, the wastage can be exponential.
Following Reed's driving example, a function call can be like a detour, and if the detour contains detours, and if those also contain detours, soon there is tremendous time being wasted, for no obvious reason, because each function call looks innocent.
Like others have said, I wouldn't worry about it in this particular scenario. The very small overhead involved in function calls would pale in comparison to what is done inside each function. And as long as these functions don't get called in rapid succession, it probably wouldn't matter much anyway.
It is a good question though. In some cases it's best not to break code into multiple functions. For example, when working with math intensive tasks with nested loops it's best to make as few function calls as possible in the inner loop. That's because the simple math operations themselves are very cheap, and next to that the function-call-overhead can cause a noticeable performance penalty.
Years ago I discovered the hypot (hypotenuse) function in the math library I was using in a VC++ app was very slow. It seemed ridiculous to me because it's such a simple set of functionality -- return sqrt(a * a + b * b) -- how hard is that? So I wrote my own and managed to improve performance 16X over. Then I added the "inline" keyword to the function and made it 3X faster than that (about 50X faster at this point). Then I took the code out of the function and put it in my loop itself and saw yet another small performance increase. So... yeah, those are the types of scenarios where you can see a difference.