This is sort of a weird question but hopefully someone will be able to help me.
I have a matlab code where due to the parallelized nature of the code i need to work with struct arrays.
After running the parfor loop I want to transform those structure arrays into three-dimensional arrays.
At the moment I am using the following code:
for k = 1:nsim
ksim(:,:,k) = st(k).ksim;
Msim(:,k) = st(k).Msim;
Vsim(:,:,k) = st(k).Vsim;
Psim(:,:,k) = st(k).Psim;
end
clearvars st
However this seems to be extremely inefficient as momentarily matlab needs to double all the matrices thus almos doubling memory use.
Any smarter way of achieving this without increasing that much memory use?
I do not consider this as the answer you are looking for; But it is an improvement.
Define the new arrays and remove fields one by one. Since there seems to be three huge outputs, this will decrease the peak of memory usage to ~130% instead of 200%.
for k = 1:nsim
ksim(:,:,k) = st(k).ksim;
end
st = rmfield(st , 'ksim');
for k = 1:nsim
Msim(:,k) = st(k).Msim;
end
st = rmfield(st , 'Msim');
and so on.
Related
I have to execute this for cycle:
load('Y');
X_test = ...;
Y_test = ...;
X_train = ...;
Y_train = ...;
for i=1:length(Y.Y)
if Y.Y(i,1) == l
current_test_data = [current_test_data; X_test(i,:)];
current_test_labes = [current_test_labes; Y_test(i,:)];
else
current_train_data = [current_train_data; X_train(i,:)];
current_train_labes = [current_train_labes; Y_train(i,:)];
end
end
But length(Y.Y) is 2300250 so this execution takes a long time. There is a faster way to do that?
What you are doing is indeed not great in terms of performance.
The first issue is the loop. Matlab does not handle them very fast; when possible, vectorized operations should be preferred as they are well optimized. For instance, it is much faster to execute A=B.*C than for ii=1:length(B), A(ii)=B(ii)*C(ii);end
The second issue is that you are concatenating arrays within the loop. current_test_data starts as a small array that grows over time. Each time some data is appended, memory needs to be reallocated. The data may have to be moved to another place in the memory. Since Matlab stores data in column major order, adding an extra row also means that all samples but the first column have to be moved (while adding an extra column is just appending data at the end). All of this conspires to make a terrible performance. With small arrays, this may not be noticeable; but as you start moving megabytes or more of data in memory at each iteration, performance will plummet
The usual solution, when the final size of the array is known, is to pre-allocate arrays, for instance current_test_data = zeros(expected_rows,expected_columns);, and put the data straight away where it belongs: current_test_data(jj,:) = some_matrix(ii,:);. No more memory allocation, no more memory moves, no more shuffling-samples-around.
But then, in your specific case, the solution lies with the first point: using vectorized notation is the solution. It will pre-allocate the arrays to the right size and copy data efficiently.
sel = Y.Y(:,1)==1; % Builds a logical vector
% Selects data based on logical vector
current_test_data = X_test(sel,:);
current_test_labes = Y_test(sel,:);
current_train_data = X_train(~sel,:);
current_train_labes = Y_train(~sel,:);
I'm putting together a hypothesis tree type algorithm in MATLAB and it is being slowed terribly by memory issues. The profiler shows all time being spent just writing into arrays.
The algorithm keeps a list of hypotheses with information about them in an array of structs. The issue is related to 3D arrays (not big) within the hypothesis:
H(x).someInfo(a,b,c)
Each iteration, some hypotheses are discarded:
H = H(keepIndices);
And the ones that remain are expanded and updated:
Hin = H;
H(N*length(H)) = H(1); % Pre-alloc?
count = 0;
for x = 1:length(Hin)
for y = 1:N
count = count + 1;
H(count) = Hin(x);
... % Computations
H(count).someInfo(:,:,a) = M; % Much time spent here
end
end
The profiler indicates huge amounts of time spent just doing the write (note comment). "someInfo" is preallocated so is not itself growing dynamically, but it is getting copied around.
Can anyone suggest a way to achieve this type of functionality without getting crossways with inefficiencies in the way MATLAB deals with memory? Not blaming MATLAB, but its flexibility makes this harder than it would be in C++.
If the access pattern to someInfo is always the same, you could turn it into a cell array of 2D matrices. You'll find that
H(count).someInfo{a} = M;
is faster than
H(count).someInfo(:,:,a) = M;
because the array data is not copied over, only the reference to the data is.
...and if that is the case, you might want to do
H{count,a} = M;
Note that the fewer levels of indexing (you have 3!), the faster it is.
I have a problem with MathWorks Parallel Computing Toolbox in Matlab. See my code below
for k=1:length(Xab)
n1=length(Z)*(k-1)+1:length(Z)*k;
MX_j(1,n1)=JXab{k};
MY_j(1,n1)=JYab{k};
MZ_j(1,n1)=Z;
end
for k=length(Xab)+1:length(Xab)+length(Xbc)
n2=length(Z)*(k-1)+1:length(Z)*k;
MX_j(1,n2)=JXbc{k-length(Xab)};
MY_j(1,n2)=JYbc{k-length(Yab)};
MZ_j(1,n2)=Z;
end
for k=length(Xab)+length(Xbc)+1:length(Xab)+length(Xbc)+length(Xcd)
n3=length(Z)*(k-1)+1:length(Z)*k;
MX_j(1,n3)=JXcd{k-length(Xab)-length(Xbc)};
MY_j(1,n3)=JYcd{k-length(Yab)-length(Ybc)};
MZ_j(1,n3)=Z;
end
for k=length(Xab)+length(Xbc)+length(Xcd)+1:length(Xab)+length(Xbc)+length(Xcd)+length(Xda)
n4=length(Z)*(k-1)+1:length(Z)*k;
MX_j(1,n4)=JXda{k-length(Xab)-length(Xbc)-length(Xcd)};
MY_j(1,n4)=JYda{k-length(Yab)-length(Ybc)-length(Ycd)};
MZ_j(1,n4)=Z;
end
If I change the for-loop to parfor-loop, matlab warns me that MX_j is not an efficient variable. I have no idea how to solve this and how to make these for loops compute in parallel?
For me, it looks like you can combine it to one loop. Create combined cell arrays.
JX = cat(2,JXab, JXbc, JXcd, JXda);
JY = cat(2,JYab, JYbc, JYcd, JYda);
Check for the right dimension here. If your JXcc arrays are column arrays, use cat(1,....
After doing that, one single loop should do it:
n = length(Xab)+length(Xbc)+length(Xcd)+length(Xda);
for k=1:n
k2 = length(Z)*(k-1)+1:length(Z)*k;
MX_j(1,k2)=JX{k};
MY_j(1,k2)=JY{k};
MZ_j(1,k2)=Z;
end
Before parallizing anything, check if this still valid. I haven't tested it. If everything's nice, you can switch to parfor.
When using parfor, the arrays must be preallocated. The following code could work (untested due to lack of test-data):
n = length(Xab)+length(Xbc)+length(Xcd)+length(Xda);
MX_j = zeros(1,n*length(Z));
MY_j = MX_j;
MZ_j = MX_j;
parfor k=1:n
k2 = length(Z)*(k-1)+1:length(Z)*k;
MX_j(1,k2)=JX{k};
MY_j(1,k2)=JY{k};
MZ_j(1,k2)=Z;
end
Note: As far as I can see, the parfor loop will be much slower here. You simply assign some values... no calculation at all. The setup of the worker pool will take 99.9% of the total execution time.
I am trying to iterate through a set of samples that seems to show periodic changes. I need continuously apply the fit function to get the fourier series coefficients, the regression has to be n samples in the past (in my case, around 30). The problem is, my code is extremely slow! It will take like 1 hour to do this for a set of 50,000 samples. Is there any way to optimize this? What am I doing wrong?
Here's my code:
function[coefnames,coef] = fourier_regression(vect_waves,n)
j = 1;
coef = zeros(length(vect_waves)-n,10);
for i=n+1:length(vect_waves)
take_fourier = vect_waves(i-n+1:i);
x = 1:n;
f = fit(x,take_fourier,'fourier4');
current_coef = coeffvalues(f);
coef(j,1:length(current_coef)) = current_coef;
j = j + 1;
end
coefnames = coeffnames(f);
end
When I call [coefnames,coef] = fourier_regression(VECTOR,30); This takes forever to compute. Is there any way to fix it? What's wrong with my code?
Note: I have a intel i7 5500 U cpu, 16GB RAM, and using Matlab 2015a.
As I am not familiar with your application, I am not sure whether it is possible to vectorize the code to improve performance. However, I have a couple of other tips.
One thing you should consider is preallocation of arrays. In this case, you should preallocate at least the array coef since I believe you do know its size before starting the loop.
Another thing I suggest is to profile your code. This will provide information on what parts of your code are consuming the most time, helping you focus your effort on improving those parts' performance.
This question is related to these two:
Introduction to vectorizing in MATLAB - any good tutorials?
filter that uses elements from two arrays at the same time
Basing on the tutorials I read, I was trying to vectorize some procedure that takes really a lot of time.
I've rewritten this:
function B = bfltGray(A,w,sigma_r)
dim = size(A);
B = zeros(dim);
for i = 1:dim(1)
for j = 1:dim(2)
% Extract local region.
iMin = max(i-w,1);
iMax = min(i+w,dim(1));
jMin = max(j-w,1);
jMax = min(j+w,dim(2));
I = A(iMin:iMax,jMin:jMax);
% Compute Gaussian intensity weights.
F = exp(-0.5*(abs(I-A(i,j))/sigma_r).^2);
B(i,j) = sum(F(:).*I(:))/sum(F(:));
end
end
into this:
function B = rngVect(A, w, sigma)
W = 2*w+1;
I = padarray(A, [w,w],'symmetric');
I = im2col(I, [W,W]);
H = exp(-0.5*(abs(I-repmat(A(:)', size(I,1),1))/sigma).^2);
B = reshape(sum(H.*I,1)./sum(H,1), size(A, 1), []);
Where
A is a matrix 512x512
w is half of the window size, usually equal 5
sigma is a parameter in range [0 1] (usually one of: 0.1, 0.2 or 0.3)
So the I matrix would have 512x512x121 = 31719424 elements
But this version seems to be as slow as the first one, but in addition it uses a lot of memory and sometimes causes memory problems.
I suppose I've made something wrong. Probably some logic mistake regarding vectorizing. Well, in fact I'm not surprised - this method creates really big matrices and probably the computations are proportionally longer.
I have also tried to write it using nlfilter (similar to the second solution given by Jonas) but it seems to be hard since I use Matlab 6.5 (R13) (there are no sophisticated function handles available).
So once again, I'm asking not for ready solution, but for some ideas that would help me to solve this in reasonable time. Maybe you will point me what I did wrong.
Edit:
As Mikhail suggested, the results of profiling are as follows:
65% of time was spent in the line H= exp(...)
25% of time was used by im2col
How big are I and H (i.e. numel(I)*8 bytes)? If you start paging, then the performance of your second solution is going to be affected very badly.
To test whether you really have a problem due to too large arrays, you can try and measure the speed of the calculation using tic and toc for arrays A of increasing size. If the execution time increases faster than by the square of the size of A, or if the execution time jumps at some size of A, you can try and split the padded I into a number of sub-arrays and perform the calculations like that.
Otherwise, I don't see any obvious places where you could be losing lots of time. Well, maybe you could skip the reshape, by replacing B with A in your function (saves a little memory as well), and writing
A(:) = sum(H.*I,1)./sum(H,1);
You may also want to look into upgrading to a more recent version of Matlab - they've worked hard on improving performance.