Related
I have two arrays containing point coordinates as shapely.geometry.Point with different sizes.
Eg:
[Point(X Y), Point(X Y)...]
[Point(X Y), Point(X Y)...]
I would like to create a "cross product" of these two arrays with a distance function. Distance function is from shapely.geometry, which is a simple geometry vector distance calculation. I am tryibg to create distance matrix between M:N points:
Right now I have this function:
source = gpd.read_file(source)
near = gpd.read_file(near)
source_list = source.geometry.values.tolist()
near_list = near.geometry.values.tolist()
array = np.empty((len(source.ID_SOURCE), len(near.ID_NEAR)))
for index_source, item_source in enumerate(source_list):
for index_near, item_near in enumerate(near_list):
array[index_source, index_near] = item_source.distance(item_near)
df_matrix = pd.DataFrame(array, index=source.ID_SOURCE, columns = near.ID_NEAR)
Which does the job fine, but is slow. 4000 x 4000 points is around 100 seconds (I have datasets which are way bigger, so speed is main issue). I would like to avoid this double loop if possible. I tried to do in in pandas dataframe as in (which has terrible speed):
for index_source, item_source in source.iterrows():
for index_near, item_near in near.iterrows():
df_matrix.at[index_source, index_near] = item_source.geometry.distance(item_near.geometry)
A bit faster is (but still 4x slower than numpy):
for index_source, item_source in enumerate(source_list):
for index_near, item_near in enumerate(near_list):
df_matrix.at[index_source, index_near] = item_source.distance(item_near)
Is there a faster way to do this? I guess there is, but I have no idea how to proceed. I might be able to chunk the dataframe into smaller pieces and send the chunk onto different core and concat the results - this is the last resort. If somehow we can use numpy only with some indexing only magic, I can send it to GPU and be done with it in no time. But the double for loop is a no no right now. Also I would like to not use any other library than Pandas/Numpy. I can use SAGA processing and its Point distances module (http://www.saga-gis.org/saga_tool_doc/2.2.2/shapes_points_3.html), which is pretty damn fast, but I am looking for Python only solution.
If you can get the coordinates in separate vectors, I would try this:
import numpy as np
x = np.asarray([5.6, 2.1, 6.9, 3.1]) # Replace with data
y = np.asarray([7.2, 8.3, 0.5, 4.5]) # Replace with data
x_i = x[:, np.newaxis]
x_j = x[np.newaxis, :]
y_i = y[:, np.newaxis]
y_j = y[np.newaxis, :]
d = (x_i-x_j)**2+(y_i-y_j)**2
np.sqrt(d, out=d)
I'm trying to plot a simple moving averages function but the resulting array is a few numbers short of the full sample size. How do I plot such a line alongside a more standard line that extends for the full sample size? The code below results in this error message:
ValueError: x and y must have same first dimension, but have shapes (96,) and (100,)
This is using standard matplotlib.pyplot. I've tried just deleting X values using remove and del as well as switching all arrays to numpy arrays (since that's the output format of my moving averages function) then tried adding an if condition to the append in the while loop but neither has worked.
import random
import matplotlib
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
def movingaverage(values, window):
weights = np.repeat(1.0, window) / window
smas = np.convolve(values, weights, 'valid')
return smas
sampleSize = 100
min = -10
max = 10
window = 5
vX = np.array([])
vY = np.array([])
x = 0
val = 0
while x < sampleSize:
val += (random.randint(min, max))
vY = np.append(vY, val)
vX = np.append(vX, x)
x += 1
plt.plot(vX, vY)
plt.plot(vX, movingaverage(vY, window))
plt.show()
Expected results would be two lines on the same graph - one a simple moving average of the other.
Just change this line to the following:
smas = np.convolve(values, weights,'same')
The 'valid' option, only convolves if the window completely covers the values array. What you want is 'same', which does what you are looking for.
Edit: This, however, also comes with its own issues as it acts like there are extra bits of data with value 0 when your window does not fully sit on top of the data. This can be ignored if chosen, as is done in this solution, but another approach is to pad the array with specific values of your choosing instead (see Mike Sperry's answer).
Here is how you would pad a numpy array out to the desired length with 'nan's (replace 'nan' with other values, or replace 'constant' with another mode depending on desired results)
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.pad.html
import numpy as np
bob = np.asarray([1,2,3])
alice = np.pad(bob,(0,100-len(bob)),'constant',constant_values=('nan','nan'))
So in your code it would look something like this:
import random
import matplotlib
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
def movingaverage(values,window):
weights = np.repeat(1.0,window)/window
smas = np.convolve(values,weights,'valid')
shorted = int((100-len(smas))/2)
print(shorted)
smas = np.pad(smas,(shorted,shorted),'constant',constant_values=('nan','nan'))
return smas
sampleSize = 100
min = -10
max = 10
window = 5
vX = np.array([])
vY = np.array([])
x = 0
val = 0
while x < sampleSize:
val += (random.randint(min,max))
vY = np.append(vY,val)
vX = np.append(vX,x)
x += 1
plt.plot(vX,vY)
plt.plot(vX,(movingaverage(vY,window)))
plt.show()
To answer your basic question, the key is to take a slice of the x-axis appropriate to the data of the moving average. Since you have a convolution of 100 data elements with a window of size 5, the result is valid for the last 96 elements. You would plot it like this:
plt.plot(vX[window - 1:], movingaverage(vY, window))
That being said, your code could stand to have some optimization done on it. For example, numpy arrays are stored in fixed size static buffers. Any time you do append or delete on them, the entire thing gets reallocated, unlike Python lists, which have amortization built in. It is always better to preallocate if you know the array size ahead of time (which you do).
Secondly, running an explicit loop is rarely necessary. You are generally better off using the under-the-hood loops implemented at the lowest level in the numpy functions instead. This is called vectorization. Random number generation, cumulative sums and incremental arrays are all fully vectorized in numpy. In a more general sense, it's usually not very effective to mix Python and numpy computational functions, including random.
Finally, you may want to consider a different convolution method. I would suggest something based on numpy.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided. This is a somewhat arcane, but very effective way to implement a sliding window with numpy arrays. I will show it here as an alternative to the convolution method you used, but feel free to ignore this part.
All in all:
import matplotlib
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
def movingaverage(values, window):
# this step creates a view into the same buffer
values = np.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided(values, shape=(window, values.size - window + 1), strides=values.strides * 2)
smas = values.sum(axis=0)
smas /= window # in-place to avoid temp array
return smas
sampleSize = 100
min = -10
max = 10
window = 5
v_x = np.arange(sampleSize)
v_y = np.cumsum(np.random.random_integers(min, max, sampleSize))
plt.plot(v_x, v_y)
plt.plot(v_x[window - 1:], movingaverage(v_y, window))
plt.show()
A note on names: in Python, variable and function names are conventionally name_with_underscore. CamelCase is reserved for class names. np.random.random_integers uses inclusive bounds just like random.randint, but allows you to specify the number of samples to generate. Confusingly, np.random.randint has an exclusive upper bound, more like random.randrange.
I have two sets of points, one is a map consisting of x,y coordinates, and the second is a path of x,y coordinates. I'm trying to find the closest map points to my path points, pretty simple. Except my map is 380000 points and my paths (of which I have several) each consist of ~ 350000 points themselves.
Other than sampling my data to get smaller datasets, I'm trying to find a faster way to accomplish this task.
base algorithm:
import pandas as pd
from scipy.spatial.distance import cdist
...
def closeset_point(point, points):
return points[cdist([point], points).argmin()]
# log['point'].shape; 333000
# map_data['point'].shape; 380000
closest = [closest_point(log_p, list(map_data['point'])) for log_p in log['point']]
as per this example: Find closest point in Pandas DataFrames
After converting this to a tqdm progress bar to see how long it would take (as it was taking a while, obviously), I noticed it would take about 10hrs to complete.
tqdm loop:
for i in trange(len(log), desc='finding closest points'):
closest.append(closest_point(log['point'].loc[i], list(map_data['point'])))
>> finding closest points: 5%| | 16432/333456 [32:11<10:13:52], 8.60it/s
While 10 hours is not impossible, I wonder if there is a way to speed this up? I have a solid gpu/cpu/ram at my disposal so I feel this should be doable. I'm also learning tensorflow (but honestly my math is atrocious so I'm very in the dark with it)
Any ideas on how to speed this up with either multi-threading, gpu computation, tensorflow or some other sort of wizardry?
inb4 python is slow ;)
*edit: image shows what i'm trying to do. green is path, blue is map, orange is what I'm trying to find.
The following is a mini example of what you're trying to do. Considers the variable coords1 as your variable log['point'] and coords2 as your variable log['point']. The end result is the index of the coord2 closest to coord1.
from scipy.spatial import distance
import numpy as np
coords1 = [(35.0456, -85.2672),
(35.1174, -89.9711),
(35.9728, -83.9422),
(36.1667, -86.7833)]
coords2 = [(35.0456, -85.2672),
(35.1174, -89.9711),
(35.9728, -83.9422),
(34.9728, -83.9422),
(36.1667, -86.7833)]
tmp = distance.cdist(coords1, coords2, "sqeuclidean") # sqeuclidean based on Mark Setchell comment to improve speed further
result = np.argmin(tmp,1)
# result: array([0, 1, 2, 4])
This should be way faster, because it's done everything in one iteration.
After 3 years, but if anyone is looking at this issue... You may want to try Numba I get almost a 9x speed reduction from scipy distance.cdist on a 1.5 Million set of points to a 1.5 K set of path points. Also, as #
Mark Setchell said if you want to remove the np.sqrt in a big enough set of points could be considerable saved time.
Results
size: (1459383, 2)
numba: 0.06402060508728027
cdist: 0.5371212959289551
Code
# EUCLEDIAN DISTANCE
#numba.njit('(float64[:,::1], float64[::1], float64[::1])', parallel=True, fastmath=True)
def pz_dist(p_array, x_flat, y_flat):
m = p_array.shape[0]
n = x_flat.shape[0]
d = np.empty(shape=(m, n), dtype=np.float64)
for i in numba.prange(m):
p1 = p_array[i, :]
for j in range(n):
_x = x_flat[j] - p1[0]
_y = y_flat[j] - p1[1]
_d = np.sqrt(_x**2 + _y**2)
d[i, j] = _d
return d
I have a set of 46 years worth of rainfall data. It's in the form of 46 numpy arrays each with a shape of 145, 192, so each year is a different array of maximum rainfall data at each lat and lon coordinate in the given model.
I need to create a global map of tau values by doing an M-K test (Mann-Kendall) for each coordinate over the 46 years.
I'm still learning python, so I've been having trouble finding a way to go through all the data in a simple way that doesn't involve me making 27840 new arrays for each coordinate.
So far I've looked into how to use scipy.stats.kendalltau and using the definition from here: https://github.com/mps9506/Mann-Kendall-Trend
EDIT:
To clarify and add a little more detail, I need to perform a test on for each coordinate and not just each file individually. For example, for the first M-K test, I would want my x=46 and I would want y=data1[0,0],data2[0,0],data3[0,0]...data46[0,0]. Then to repeat this process for every single coordinate in each array. In total the M-K test would be done 27840 times and leave me with 27840 tau values that I can then plot on a global map.
EDIT 2:
I'm now running into a different problem. Going off of the suggested code, I have the following:
for i in range(145):
for j in range(192):
out[i,j] = mk_test(yrmax[:,i,j],alpha=0.05)
print out
I used numpy.stack to stack all 46 arrays into a single array (yrmax) with shape: (46L, 145L, 192L) I've tested it out and it calculates p and tau correctly if I change the code from out[i,j] to just out. However, doing this messes up the for loop so it only takes the results from the last coordinate in stead of all of them. And if I leave the code as it is above, I get the error: TypeError: list indices must be integers, not tuple
My first guess was that it has to do with mk_test and how the information is supposed to be returned in the definition. So I've tried altering the code from the link above to change how the data is returned, but I keep getting errors relating back to tuples. So now I'm not sure where it's going wrong and how to fix it.
EDIT 3:
One more clarification I thought I should add. I've already modified the definition in the link so it returns only the two number values I want for creating maps, p and z.
I don't think this is as big an ask as you may imagine. From your description it sounds like you don't actually want the scipy kendalltau, but the function in the repository you posted. Here is a little example I set up:
from time import time
import numpy as np
from mk_test import mk_test
data = np.array([np.random.rand(145, 192) for _ in range(46)])
mk_res = np.empty((145, 192), dtype=object)
start = time()
for i in range(145):
for j in range(192):
out[i, j] = mk_test(data[:, i, j], alpha=0.05)
print(f'Elapsed Time: {time() - start} s')
Elapsed Time: 35.21990394592285 s
My system is a MacBook Pro 2.7 GHz Intel Core I7 with 16 GB Ram so nothing special.
Each entry in the mk_res array (shape 145, 192) corresponds to one of your coordinate points and contains an entry like so:
array(['no trend', 'False', '0.894546014835', '0.132554125342'], dtype='<U14')
One thing that might be useful would be to modify the code in mk_test.py to return all numerical values. So instead of 'no trend'/'positive'/'negative' you could return 0/1/-1, and 1/0 for True/False and then you wouldn't have to worry about the whole object array type. I don't know what kind of analysis you might want to do downstream but I imagine that would preemptively circumvent any headaches.
Thanks to the answers provided and some work I was able to work out a solution that I'll provide here for anyone else that needs to use the Mann-Kendall test for data analysis.
The first thing I needed to do was flatten the original array I had into a 1D array. I know there is probably an easier way to go about doing this, but I ultimately used the following code based on code Grr suggested using.
`x = 46
out1 = np.empty(x)
out = np.empty((0))
for i in range(146):
for j in range(193):
out1 = yrmax[:,i,j]
out = np.append(out, out1, axis=0) `
Then I reshaped the resulting array (out) as follows:
out2 = np.reshape(out,(27840,46))
I did this so my data would be in a format compatible with scipy.stats.kendalltau 27840 is the total number of values I have at every coordinate that will be on my map (i.e. it's just 145*192) and the 46 is the number of years the data spans.
I then used the following loop I modified from Grr's code to find Kendall-tau and it's respective p-value at each latitude and longitude over the 46 year period.
`x = range(46)
y = np.zeros((0))
for j in range(27840):
b = sc.stats.kendalltau(x,out2[j,:])
y = np.append(y, b, axis=0)`
Finally, I reshaped the data one for time as shown:newdata = np.reshape(y,(145,192,2)) so the final array is in a suitable format to be used to create a global map of both tau and p-values.
Thanks everyone for the assistance!
Depending on your situation, it might just be easiest to make the arrays.
You won't really need them all in memory at once (not that it sounds like a terrible amount of data). Something like this only has to deal with one "copied out" coordinate trend at once:
SIZE = (145,192)
year_matrices = load_years() # list of one 145x192 arrays per year
result_matrix = numpy.zeros(SIZE)
for x in range(SIZE[0]):
for y in range(SIZE[1]):
coord_trend = map(lambda d: d[x][y], year_matrices)
result_matrix[x][y] = analyze_trend(coord_trend)
print result_matrix
Now, there are things like itertools.izip that could help you if you really want to avoid actually copying the data.
Here's a concrete example of how Python's "zip" might works with data like yours (although as if you'd used ndarray.flatten on each year):
year_arrays = [
['y0_coord0_val', 'y0_coord1_val', 'y0_coord2_val', 'y0_coord2_val'],
['y1_coord0_val', 'y1_coord1_val', 'y1_coord2_val', 'y1_coord2_val'],
['y2_coord0_val', 'y2_coord1_val', 'y2_coord2_val', 'y2_coord2_val'],
]
assert len(year_arrays) == 3
assert len(year_arrays[0]) == 4
coord_arrays = zip(*year_arrays) # i.e. `zip(year_arrays[0], year_arrays[1], year_arrays[2])`
# original data is essentially transposed
assert len(coord_arrays) == 4
assert len(coord_arrays[0]) == 3
assert coord_arrays[0] == ('y0_coord0_val', 'y1_coord0_val', 'y2_coord0_val', 'y3_coord0_val')
assert coord_arrays[1] == ('y0_coord1_val', 'y1_coord1_val', 'y2_coord1_val', 'y3_coord1_val')
assert coord_arrays[2] == ('y0_coord2_val', 'y1_coord2_val', 'y2_coord2_val', 'y3_coord2_val')
assert coord_arrays[3] == ('y0_coord2_val', 'y1_coord2_val', 'y2_coord2_val', 'y3_coord2_val')
flat_result = map(analyze_trend, coord_arrays)
The example above still copies the data (and all at once, rather than a coordinate at a time!) but hopefully shows what's going on.
Now, if you replace zip with itertools.izip and map with itertools.map then the copies needn't occur — itertools wraps the original arrays and keeps track of where it should be fetching values from internally.
There's a catch, though: to take advantage itertools you to access the data only sequentially (i.e. through iteration). In your case, it looks like the code at https://github.com/mps9506/Mann-Kendall-Trend/blob/master/mk_test.py might not be compatible with that. (I haven't reviewed the algorithm itself to see if it could be.)
Also please note that in the example I've glossed over the numpy ndarray stuff and just show flat coordinate arrays. It looks like numpy has some of it's own options for handling this instead of itertools, e.g. this answer says "Taking the transpose of an array does not make a copy". Your question was somewhat general, so I've tried to give some general tips as to ways one might deal with larger data in Python.
I ran into the same task and have managed to come up with a vectorized solution using numpy and scipy.
The formula are the same as in this page: https://vsp.pnnl.gov/help/Vsample/Design_Trend_Mann_Kendall.htm.
The trickiest part is to work out the adjustment for the tied values. I modified the code as in this answer to compute the number of tied values for each record, in a vectorized manner.
Below are the 2 functions:
import copy
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import norm
def countTies(x):
'''Count number of ties in rows of a 2D matrix
Args:
x (ndarray): 2d matrix.
Returns:
result (ndarray): 2d matrix with same shape as <x>. In each
row, the number of ties are inserted at (not really) arbitary
locations.
The locations of tie numbers in are not important, since
they will be subsequently put into a formula of sum(t*(t-1)*(2t+5)).
Inspired by: https://stackoverflow.com/a/24892274/2005415.
'''
if np.ndim(x) != 2:
raise Exception("<x> should be 2D.")
m, n = x.shape
pad0 = np.zeros([m, 1]).astype('int')
x = copy.deepcopy(x)
x.sort(axis=1)
diff = np.diff(x, axis=1)
cated = np.concatenate([pad0, np.where(diff==0, 1, 0), pad0], axis=1)
absdiff = np.abs(np.diff(cated, axis=1))
rows, cols = np.where(absdiff==1)
rows = rows.reshape(-1, 2)[:, 0]
cols = cols.reshape(-1, 2)
counts = np.diff(cols, axis=1)+1
result = np.zeros(x.shape).astype('int')
result[rows, cols[:,1]] = counts.flatten()
return result
def MannKendallTrend2D(data, tails=2, axis=0, verbose=True):
'''Vectorized Mann-Kendall tests on 2D matrix rows/columns
Args:
data (ndarray): 2d array with shape (m, n).
Keyword Args:
tails (int): 1 for 1-tail, 2 for 2-tail test.
axis (int): 0: test trend in each column. 1: test trend in each
row.
Returns:
z (ndarray): If <axis> = 0, 1d array with length <n>, standard scores
corresponding to data in each row in <x>.
If <axis> = 1, 1d array with length <m>, standard scores
corresponding to data in each column in <x>.
p (ndarray): p-values corresponding to <z>.
'''
if np.ndim(data) != 2:
raise Exception("<data> should be 2D.")
# alway put records in rows and do M-K test on each row
if axis == 0:
data = data.T
m, n = data.shape
mask = np.triu(np.ones([n, n])).astype('int')
mask = np.repeat(mask[None,...], m, axis=0)
s = np.sign(data[:,None,:]-data[:,:,None]).astype('int')
s = (s * mask).sum(axis=(1,2))
#--------------------Count ties--------------------
counts = countTies(data)
tt = counts * (counts - 1) * (2*counts + 5)
tt = tt.sum(axis=1)
#-----------------Sample Gaussian-----------------
var = (n * (n-1) * (2*n+5) - tt) / 18.
eps = 1e-8 # avoid dividing 0
z = (s - np.sign(s)) / (np.sqrt(var) + eps)
p = norm.cdf(z)
p = np.where(p>0.5, 1-p, p)
if tails==2:
p=p*2
return z, p
I assume your data come in the layout of (time, latitude, longitude), and you are examining the temporal trend for each lat/lon cell.
To simulate this task, I synthesized a sample data array of shape (50, 145, 192). The 50 time points are taken from Example 5.9 of the book Wilks 2011, Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences. And then I simply duplicated the same time series 27840 times to make it (50, 145, 192).
Below is the computation:
x = np.array([0.44,1.18,2.69,2.08,3.66,1.72,2.82,0.72,1.46,1.30,1.35,0.54,\
2.74,1.13,2.50,1.72,2.27,2.82,1.98,2.44,2.53,2.00,1.12,2.13,1.36,\
4.9,2.94,1.75,1.69,1.88,1.31,1.76,2.17,2.38,1.16,1.39,1.36,\
1.03,1.11,1.35,1.44,1.84,1.69,3.,1.36,6.37,4.55,0.52,0.87,1.51])
# create a big cube with shape: (T, Y, X)
arr = np.zeros([len(x), 145, 192])
for i in range(arr.shape[1]):
for j in range(arr.shape[2]):
arr[:, i, j] = x
print(arr.shape)
# re-arrange into tabular layout: (Y*X, T)
arr = np.transpose(arr, [1, 2, 0])
arr = arr.reshape(-1, len(x))
print(arr.shape)
import time
t1 = time.time()
z, p = MannKendallTrend2D(arr, tails=2, axis=1)
p = p.reshape(145, 192)
t2 = time.time()
print('time =', t2-t1)
The p-value for that sample time series is 0.63341565, which I have validated against the pymannkendall module result. Since arr contains merely duplicated copies of x, the resultant p is a 2d array of size (145, 192), with all 0.63341565.
And it took me only 1.28 seconds to compute that.
In R, I am using ccf or acf to compute the pair-wise cross-correlation function so that I can find out which shift gives me the maximum value. From the looks of it, R gives me a normalized sequence of values. Is there something similar in Python's scipy or am I supposed to do it using the fft module? Currently, I am doing it as follows:
xcorr = lambda x,y : irfft(rfft(x)*rfft(y[::-1]))
x = numpy.array([0,0,1,1])
y = numpy.array([1,1,0,0])
print xcorr(x,y)
To cross-correlate 1d arrays use numpy.correlate.
For 2d arrays, use scipy.signal.correlate2d.
There is also scipy.stsci.convolve.correlate2d.
There is also matplotlib.pyplot.xcorr which is based on numpy.correlate.
See this post on the SciPy mailing list for some links to different implementations.
Edit: #user333700 added a link to the SciPy ticket for this issue in a comment.
If you are looking for a rapid, normalized cross correlation in either one or two dimensions
I would recommend the openCV library (see http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/ http://opencv.org/). The cross-correlation code maintained by this group is the fastest you will find, and it will be normalized (results between -1 and 1).
While this is a C++ library the code is maintained with CMake and has python bindings so that access to the cross correlation functions is convenient. OpenCV also plays nicely with numpy. If I wanted to compute a 2-D cross-correlation starting from numpy arrays I could do it as follows.
import numpy
import cv
#Create a random template and place it in a larger image
templateNp = numpy.random.random( (100,100) )
image = numpy.random.random( (400,400) )
image[:100, :100] = templateNp
#create a numpy array for storing result
resultNp = numpy.zeros( (301, 301) )
#convert from numpy format to openCV format
templateCv = cv.fromarray(numpy.float32(template))
imageCv = cv.fromarray(numpy.float32(image))
resultCv = cv.fromarray(numpy.float32(resultNp))
#perform cross correlation
cv.MatchTemplate(templateCv, imageCv, resultCv, cv.CV_TM_CCORR_NORMED)
#convert result back to numpy array
resultNp = np.asarray(resultCv)
For just a 1-D cross-correlation create a 2-D array with shape equal to (N, 1 ). Though there is some extra code involved to convert to an openCV format the speed-up over scipy is quite impressive.
I just finished writing my own optimised implementation of normalized cross-correlation for N-dimensional arrays. You can get it from here.
It will calculate cross-correlation either directly, using scipy.ndimage.correlate, or in the frequency domain, using scipy.fftpack.fftn/ifftn depending on whichever will be quickest.
For 1D array, numpy.correlate is faster than scipy.signal.correlate, under different sizes, I see a consistent 5x peformance gain using numpy.correlate. When two arrays are of similar size (the bright line connecting the diagonal), the performance difference is even more outstanding (50x +).
# a simple benchmark
res = []
for x in range(1, 1000):
list_x = []
for y in range(1, 1000):
# generate different sizes of series to compare
l1 = np.random.choice(range(1, 100), size=x)
l2 = np.random.choice(range(1, 100), size=y)
time_start = datetime.now()
np.correlate(a=l1, v=l2)
t_np = datetime.now() - time_start
time_start = datetime.now()
scipy.signal.correlate(in1=l1, in2=l2)
t_scipy = datetime.now() - time_start
list_x.append(t_scipy / t_np)
res.append(list_x)
plt.imshow(np.matrix(res))
As default, scipy.signal.correlate calculates a few extra numbers by padding and that might explained the performance difference.
>> l1 = [1,2,3,2,1,2,3]
>> l2 = [1,2,3]
>> print(numpy.correlate(a=l1, v=l2))
>> print(scipy.signal.correlate(in1=l1, in2=l2))
[14 14 10 10 14]
[ 3 8 14 14 10 10 14 8 3] # the first 3 is [0,0,1]dot[1,2,3]