override operations in dask for getitem - python

Is there a way to override certain operations.
import dask
import numpy as np
a = np.zeros((10,10))
a = dask.delayed(lambda x : x*2)(a)
I would like a[0] to return a number (instead of having to call a[0].compute()).
Is this possible?
The context is that I would like to have a series of images (3D array), and run operations like:
imgs2 = imgs - 1
imgs3 = imgs*mask
and then have an operation like imgs3[0] explicitly run imgs3[0].compute().
However, I see many drawbacks with this method now and I would like to remove this post. For one is this is quite limiting. Indexing things like imgs3[:,:, 10] (all columns) may also have to end up with a computed result.

This seems to work fine for me
In [1]: import dask
...: import numpy as np
...: a = np.zeros((10,10))
...: a = dask.delayed(lambda x : x*2)(a)
...:
In [2]: a[0]
Out[2]: Delayed('getitem-4eccd4e43153cac99d8e6d280cc1ad9c')
In [3]: a[0].compute()
Out[3]: array([ 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.])

Related

Question about copies on assignment in numpy

Consider the following piece of code:
import numpy as np
a = np.zeros(10)
b = a
b = b + 1
If I print a and b, I get
>>> a
array([0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.])
and
>>> b
array([1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1., 1.])
Why is this? According to this answer, the third line above binds the variable a to the new name b, so that both refer to the same data. So why doesn't b = b + 1 modify a also?
the interpreter sees the code this way.
import numpy as np
a = np.zeros(10)
b1 = a
b2 = b1 + 1 # make a new array b1 + 1 and save it in b2
print(b2)
the + operator in numpy (or out of numpy) allocates new memory on the heap, this new memory is then assigned to the name b. (this is also a convention outside of numpy)
to prevent this, you should use the np.add function directly and pass the out parameter. (most numpy functions have an out parameter for this purpose)
import numpy as np
a = np.zeros(10)
b = a
np.add(b,1,out=b) # no new memory is allocated here.
print(a)
[1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.]
alternatively this will do almost the same end result but is less efficient.
import numpy as np
a = np.zeros(10)
b = a
b[:] = b + 1
print(a)
which would create a new array that will contain b + 1 then copy its elements into the preexisting array of b.
using the out parameter is useful when working with large data, where a simple "reserve a temporary array for results" may cause a memory error, especially when working with gpus using cupy (which has the same numpy interface) where memory is very restricted.

Vectorize list returning python function into numpy nd-array [duplicate]

numpy.vectorize takes a function f:a->b and turns it into g:a[]->b[].
This works fine when a and b are scalars, but I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work with b as an ndarray or list, i.e. f:a->b[] and g:a[]->b[][]
For example:
import numpy as np
def f(x):
return x * np.array([1,1,1,1,1], dtype=np.float32)
g = np.vectorize(f, otypes=[np.ndarray])
a = np.arange(4)
print(g(a))
This yields:
array([[ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.],
[ 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.],
[ 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.],
[ 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.]], dtype=object)
Ok, so that gives the right values, but the wrong dtype. And even worse:
g(a).shape
yields:
(4,)
So this array is pretty much useless. I know I can convert it doing:
np.array(map(list, a), dtype=np.float32)
to give me what I want:
array([[ 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.],
[ 1., 1., 1., 1., 1.],
[ 2., 2., 2., 2., 2.],
[ 3., 3., 3., 3., 3.]], dtype=float32)
but that is neither efficient nor pythonic. Can any of you guys find a cleaner way to do this?
np.vectorize is just a convenience function. It doesn't actually make code run any faster. If it isn't convenient to use np.vectorize, simply write your own function that works as you wish.
The purpose of np.vectorize is to transform functions which are not numpy-aware (e.g. take floats as input and return floats as output) into functions that can operate on (and return) numpy arrays.
Your function f is already numpy-aware -- it uses a numpy array in its definition and returns a numpy array. So np.vectorize is not a good fit for your use case.
The solution therefore is just to roll your own function f that works the way you desire.
A new parameter signature in 1.12.0 does exactly what you what.
def f(x):
return x * np.array([1,1,1,1,1], dtype=np.float32)
g = np.vectorize(f, signature='()->(n)')
Then g(np.arange(4)).shape will give (4L, 5L).
Here the signature of f is specified. The (n) is the shape of the return value, and the () is the shape of the parameter which is scalar. And the parameters can be arrays too. For more complex signatures, see Generalized Universal Function API.
import numpy as np
def f(x):
return x * np.array([1,1,1,1,1], dtype=np.float32)
g = np.vectorize(f, otypes=[np.ndarray])
a = np.arange(4)
b = g(a)
b = np.array(b.tolist())
print(b)#b.shape = (4,5)
c = np.ones((2,3,4))
d = g(c)
d = np.array(d.tolist())
print(d)#d.shape = (2,3,4,5)
This should fix the problem and it will work regardless of what size your input is. "map" only works for one dimentional inputs. Using ".tolist()" and creating a new ndarray solves the problem more completely and nicely(I believe). Hope this helps.
You want to vectorize the function
import numpy as np
def f(x):
return x * np.array([1,1,1,1,1], dtype=np.float32)
Assuming that you want to get single np.float32 arrays as result, you have to specify this as otype. In your question you specified however otypes=[np.ndarray] which means you want every element to be an np.ndarray. Thus, you correctly get a result of dtype=object.
The correct call would be
np.vectorize(f, signature='()->(n)', otypes=[np.float32])
For such a simple function it is however better to leverage numpy's ufunctions; np.vectorize just loops over it. So in your case just rewrite your function as
def f(x):
return np.multiply.outer(x, np.array([1,1,1,1,1], dtype=np.float32))
This is faster and produces less obscure errors (note however, that the results dtype will depend on x if you pass a complex or quad precision number, so will be the result).
I've written a function, it seems fits to your need.
def amap(func, *args):
'''array version of build-in map
amap(function, sequence[, sequence, ...]) -> array
Examples
--------
>>> amap(lambda x: x**2, 1)
array(1)
>>> amap(lambda x: x**2, [1, 2])
array([1, 4])
>>> amap(lambda x,y: y**2 + x**2, 1, [1, 2])
array([2, 5])
>>> amap(lambda x: (x, x), 1)
array([1, 1])
>>> amap(lambda x,y: [x**2, y**2], [1,2], [3,4])
array([[1, 9], [4, 16]])
'''
args = np.broadcast(None, *args)
res = np.array([func(*arg[1:]) for arg in args])
shape = args.shape + res.shape[1:]
return res.reshape(shape)
Let try
def f(x):
return x * np.array([1,1,1,1,1], dtype=np.float32)
amap(f, np.arange(4))
Outputs
array([[ 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.],
[ 1., 1., 1., 1., 1.],
[ 2., 2., 2., 2., 2.],
[ 3., 3., 3., 3., 3.]], dtype=float32)
You may also wrap it with lambda or partial for convenience
g = lambda x:amap(f, x)
g(np.arange(4))
Note the docstring of vectorize says
The vectorize function is provided primarily for convenience, not for
performance. The implementation is essentially a for loop.
Thus we would expect the amap here have similar performance as vectorize. I didn't check it, Any performance test are welcome.
If the performance is really important, you should consider something else, e.g. direct array calculation with reshape and broadcast to avoid loop in pure python (both vectorize and amap are the later case).
The best way to solve this would be to use a 2-D NumPy array (in this case a column array) as an input to the original function, which will then generate a 2-D output with the results I believe you were expecting.
Here is what it might look like in code:
import numpy as np
def f(x):
return x*np.array([1, 1, 1, 1, 1], dtype=np.float32)
a = np.arange(4).reshape((4, 1))
b = f(a)
# b is a 2-D array with shape (4, 5)
print(b)
This is a much simpler and less error prone way to complete the operation. Rather than trying to transform the function with numpy.vectorize, this method relies on NumPy's natural ability to broadcast arrays. The trick is to make sure that at least one dimension has an equal length between the arrays.

Assign arr with numpy fancy indexing

I really hope this is not a duplicate and this is probably a very stupid question. Sorry ;)
Problem:
I have a greyscale image with values/classes 1 and 2 and I want to convert/map this to a color image where 1 equals yellow and 2 equals blue.
import numpy as np
import cv2
result=cv2.imread("image.png", cv2.IMREAD_GRAYSCALE)
result[result==2]=[15,100,100]
result[result==1]=[130,255,255]
But this is failing with the error ValueError: NumPy boolean array indexing assignment cannot assign 3 input values to the 1995594 output values where the mask is true
I think I very close to the solution, but I don't get it.
Thanks in Advance for your help!
result is a Numpy array and is typed, its type being an integer and you try to assign to an integer slot a triple of integers… no good.
What you want to do is creating an empty color image, with the same dimensions of result, and assigning to the last axis the requested triples.
I have not installed cv2 but you can look at the following code to have an idea on how to proceed.
Equivalent to what you have done, the same error
In [36]: import numpy as np
In [37]: a = np.random.randint(0,2,(2,4))
In [38]: a
Out[38]:
array([[1, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 1]])
In [39]: a[a==1] = (1,2,3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ValueError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-39-24af4c8dbf5a> in <module>
----> 1 a[a==1] = (1,1)
ValueError: NumPy boolean array indexing assignment cannot assign 2 input values to the 3 output values where the mask is true
Now, allocate a 3D array and apply indexing to it, assigning by default to the last axis
In [40]: b = np.zeros((2,4,3))
In [41]: b[a==1] = (1,2,3)
In [42]: b
Out[42]:
array([[[1., 2., 3.],
[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.]],
[[0., 0., 0.],
[1., 2., 3.],
[0., 0., 0.],
[1., 2., 3.]]])
We have two inner matrices (corresponding to the two rows of a), in each matrix four rows (corresponding to the four columns of a) and finally the columns are the RGB triples that you need.
I don't know exactly how the data is arranged in a cv2 image but I think you have to do minor adjustements, if any at all.
Thanks to #gboffi i got an answer. I guess I was hoping that there is a more pythonic way of doing this, but ok.
# Load in Image File
img=cv2.imread("imgfile", cv2.IMREAD_GRAYSCALE)
# Create new array with the shape of the original image
color=np.zeros((img.shape[0],result.shape[1],3))
# Note that opencv needs BGR and values from 0..1
color[result==1]=(0.84,117/225,2/225)
color[result==2]=(78/225,173/225,240/225)

Concatenate Numpy arrays with least memory

Not I have 50GB dataset saved as h5py, which is a dictionary inside. The dictionary contains keys from 0 to n, and the values are numpy ndarray(3 dimension) which have the same shape. For example:
dictionary[0] = np.array([[[...],[...]]...])
I want to concat all these np arrays, code like
sample = np.concatenate(list(dictionary.values))
this operation waste 100GB memory! If I use
del dictionary
It will decrease to 50GB memory. But I want to control the memory usage as 50GB during loading data. Another way I tried like this
sample = np.concatenate(sample,dictionary[key])
It is still using 100GB memory. I think all the cases above, the right side will create a new memory block to save, and then assigned to the left side, which will double the memory during calculations. Thus, the third way I tried like this
sample = np.empty(shape)
with h5py.File(...) as dictionary:
for key in dictionary.keys():
sample[key] = dictionary[key]
I think this code has an advantage. The value dictionary[key] assigned to some row of sample, then the memory of dictionary[key] will clear. However, I test it and find that the memory usage is also 100GB. Why?
Are there any good methods to limit the memory usage as 50GB?
Your problem is that you need to have 2 copies of the same data in memory.
If you build the array as in test1 you'll need far less memory at once, but at the cost of losing the dictionary.
import numpy as np
import time
def test1(n):
a = {x:(x, x, x) for x in range(n)} # Build sample data
b = np.array([a.pop(i) for i in range(n)]).reshape(-1)
return b
def test2(n):
a = {x:(x, x, x) for x in range(n)} # Build sample data
b = np.concatenate(list(a.values()))
return b
x1 = test1(1000000)
del x1
time.sleep(1)
x2 = test2(1000000)
Results:
test1 : 0.71 s
test2 : 1.39 s
The first peek is for test1, it's not exactly in place but it reduces the memory usage quite a bit.
dictionary[key] is a dataset on the file. dictionary[key][...] will be an numpy array, that dataset downloaded.
I imagine
sample[key] = dictionary[key]
is evaluated as
sample[key,...] = dictionary[key][...]
The dataset is downloaded, and then copied to a slice of the sample array. That downloaded array should be free for recycling. But whether numpy/python does that is another matter. I'm not in the habit of pushing memory limits.
You don't want to do the incremental concatenate - that's slow. A single concatenate on the list should be faster. I don't know for such what
list(dictionary.values)
contains. Will it be references to the datasets, or downloaded arrays? Regardless concatenate(...) on that list will have to used the downloaded arrays.
One thing puzzles me - how can you use the same key to index the first dimension of sample and dataset in dictionary? h5py keys are supposed to be strings, not integers.
Some testing
Note that I'm using string dataset names:
In [21]: d = f.create_dataset('0',data=np.zeros((2,3)))
In [22]: d = f.create_dataset('1',data=np.zeros((2,3)))
In [23]: d = f.create_dataset('2',data=np.ones((2,3)))
In [24]: d = f.create_dataset('3',data=np.arange(6.).reshape(2,3))
Your np.concatenate(list(dictionary.values)) code is missing ():
In [25]: f.values
Out[25]: <bound method MappingHDF5.values of <HDF5 file "test.hf" (mode r+)>>
In [26]: f.values()
Out[26]: ValuesViewHDF5(<HDF5 file "test.hf" (mode r+)>)
In [27]: list(f.values())
Out[27]:
[<HDF5 dataset "0": shape (2, 3), type "<f8">,
<HDF5 dataset "1": shape (2, 3), type "<f8">,
<HDF5 dataset "2": shape (2, 3), type "<f8">,
<HDF5 dataset "3": shape (2, 3), type "<f8">]
So it's just a list of the datasets. The downloading occurs when concatenate does a np.asarray(a) for each element of the list:
In [28]: np.concatenate(list(f.values()))
Out[28]:
array([[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.],
[1., 1., 1.],
[1., 1., 1.],
[0., 1., 2.],
[3., 4., 5.]])
e.g.:
In [29]: [np.array(a) for a in f.values()]
Out[29]:
[array([[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.]]), array([[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.]]), array([[1., 1., 1.],
[1., 1., 1.]]), array([[0., 1., 2.],
[3., 4., 5.]])]
In [30]: [a[...] for a in f.values()]
....
Let's look at what happens when using your iteration approach:
Make an array that can takes one dataset for each 'row':
In [34]: samples = np.zeros((4,2,3),float)
In [35]: for i,d in enumerate(f.values()):
...: v = d[...]
...: print(v.__array_interface__['data']) # databuffer location
...: samples[i,...] = v
...:
(27845184, False)
(27815504, False)
(27845184, False)
(27815504, False)
In [36]: samples
Out[36]:
array([[[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.]],
[[0., 0., 0.],
[0., 0., 0.]],
[[1., 1., 1.],
[1., 1., 1.]],
[[0., 1., 2.],
[3., 4., 5.]]])
In this small example, it recycled every other databuffer block. The 2nd iteration frees up the databuffer used in the first, which can then be reused in the 3rd, and so on.
These are small arrays in a interactive ipython session. I don't know if these observations apply in large cases.

How can I translate a MATLAB cell in Python 3?

Just to give you some context:
I have to translate some MATLAB code into Python 3 one, but here I've been confronted to a little problem.
Matlab:
for i in 1:num_nodes
for j in 1:num_nodes
K{i,j} = zeros(3,3);
Which I translated into:
k_topology = [[]]
for i in range(x):
for i in range(x):
k_topology[[i][j]].extend(np.zeros(3,3))
Also, further in the Matlab code there's a third loop:
for k in 1:3
K{i,j}(k,k) = -1
Which also kind of... Upsets me?
The fact is I don't really see how I can translate this kind of variable into Python. Also, I guess that my Python code's kind of "broken" - and I'm not really asking to any of you to improve it - , so I'm just asking which is the best way to translate Matlab's cell into Python?
I finally found something apparently simple to translate this, using list comprehension - according to kazemakase's answer. The actual Python code is now looking like this:
k_topology = [[np.zeros((3,3)) for j in range(self.get_nb_nodes_from_network())]\
for i in range(self.get_nb_nodes_from_network())]
And looks like something like this in Output:
[[array([[ 0., 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0., 0.]])], ..., [array(...)]]
(There's really too many values to paste it here, but I think you got it.)
The first question you need to ask is "what is a Matlab cell and what could be a suitable corresponding Python type?"
If I remember correctly from my bad old Matlab days, a cell is sort of a container that holds content of mixed types. It is something like a dynamically typed array or matrix. It is multidimensionally indexed.
Python is dynamically typed, so any Python contianer can basically fulfill this function. Lists in Python are indexed, so nested lists could work - but they are somewhat weird to set up and access:
K = [[None] * num_nodes for _ in range(num_nodes)]
K[i][j] # need two indices to access elements of a nested list.
For the particular scenario a dictionary better mirrors Matlab syntax. Although a ditionary takes only one index, we can exploit the fact that tuples can be declared without brackets and that dictionaries can take tuples as index:
K = {}
for i in range(num_nodes):
for j in range(num_nodes):
K[i, j] = np.zeros((3, 3))
for k in 1:3
K[i, j][k, k] = -1
While the dictionary is syntactically more concise, element access is potentially less performant than in nested lists. Nested look different than Matlab code. The choice depends on performance or similarity to the original code. But if performance is an issue there are many more things to consider, anyway. In summary: There is no one best way to do it.
Since the OP expclicitly asked not to improve the code, I explicitly ask him/her to ignore this part of the answer.
A better way to build diagonal matrices is to use np.ones instead of looping over diagonal elements.
K = {}
for i in range(num_nodes):
for j in range(num_nodes):
K[i, j] = -np.ones((3, 3))
Also, nested lists can be constructed without (much) prior initialization, if that is the preferred approach:
K = []
for i in range(num_nodes):
K.append([])
for j in range(num_nodes):
K[-1].append(-np.ones((3, 3)))
Now, for the peace of my soul, let me take apart provide feedback on the OP's code:
k_topology = [[]]
for i in range(x):
for i in range(x):
k_topology[[i][j]].extend(np.zeros(3,3))
This has nothing to do with the original Matlab code (different variable names)
Both loops use i. j is never defined.
[[i][j]] builds a list with one element i and tries to take the jth element. If j is ever something other than 0 this will cause an error.
list.extend a appends all elements of the argument individually to the list - in this case individual rows. list.append would be correct to use as the whole 3x3 matrix should be appended as one element in K.
np.zeros(3, 3) should be np.zeros((3, 3)) (assuming np is an alias for numpy) because the function takes the shape is the first argument, not multiple arguments.
Using the Octave/scipy save/loadmat that I demonstrated in the linked post:
In an Octave session
>> num_nodes=3
num_nodes = 3
>> num_nodes=3;
>> K=cell(num_nodes, num_nodes);
>> for i = 1:num_nodes
for j = 1:num_nodes
K{i,j} = zeros(2,2);
end
end
>> K
K =
{
[1,1] =
0 0
0 0
[2,1] =
0 0
0 0
etc
Access one cell:
>> K{1,2}
ans =
0 0
0 0
Access one element of one cell:
>> K{1,2}(1,1)
ans = 0
>> save -7 kfile.mat K
In Python
In [31]: from scipy import io
In [32]: data = io.loadmat('kfile.mat')
In [34]: data
Out[34]:
{'K': array([[array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]])],
[array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]])],
[array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]]),
array([[ 0., 0.],
[ 0., 0.]])]], dtype=object),
'__globals__': [],
'__header__': b'MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file, written by Octave 4.0.0, 2017-02-15 19:05:44 UTC',
'__version__': '1.0'}
In [35]: data['K'].shape
Out[35]: (3, 3)
In [36]: data['K'][0,0].shape
Out[36]: (2, 2)
In [37]: data['K'][0,0][0,0]
Out[37]: 0.0
loadmat treats a cell as a 2d object dtype array; while regular matrices are 2d numeric arrays. Object arrays are, in many ways like a nested Python list.

Categories

Resources