I am trying to find an efficient way to create a new array by repeating each element of an old array a different, specified number of times. I have come up with something that works, using array comprehensions, but it is not very efficient, either in memory or in computation:
LENGTH = 1e6
A = collect(1:LENGTH) ## arbitrary values that will be repeated specified numbers of times
NumRepeats = [rand(20:100) for idx = 1:LENGTH] ## arbitrary numbers of times to repeat each value in A
B = vcat([ [A[idx] for n = 1:NumRepeats[idx]] for idx = 1:length(A) ]...)
Ideally, what I would like would be a structure akin to the sparse matrix apparatus that Julia has but that would instead store data efficiently based on the indices where repeated values occur. Barring that, I would at least like an efficient way to create a vector such as B in the example above. I looked into the repeat() function, but as far as I can tell from the documentation and my experimentation with the function, it is just for repeating slices of an array the same number of times for each slice. What is the best way to approach this?
Sounds like you're looking for run-length encoding. There's an RLEVectors.jl package here: https://github.com/phaverty/RLEVectors.jl. Not sure how usable it is. You could also make your own data type fairly easily.
Thanks for trying RLEVectors.jl. Some features and optimizations had been languishing on master without a version bump. It can definitely be mixed with other vectors for element-wise arithmetic. I'll put the linear algebra operations on the feature request list. Any additional feature suggestions would be most welcome.
RLEVectors.jl has a rep function that works like R's and RLEVectors.inverse_ree is like StatsBase.inverse_rle, but it works on run ends rather than lengths.
Related
I have the following function: problema_firma_emprestimo(r,w,r_emprestimo,posicao,posicao_banco), where all input are scalars.
This function return three different matrix, using
return demanda_k_emprestimo,demanda_l_emprestimo,lucro_emprestimo
I need to run this function for a series of values of posicao_banco that are stored in a vector.
I'm doing this using a for loop, because I need three separate matrix with each of them storing one of the three outputs of the function, and the first dimension of each matrix corresponds to the index of posicao_banco. My code for this part is:
demanda_k_emprestimo = zeros(num_bancos,na,ny);
demanda_l_emprestimo = similar(demanda_k_emprestimo);
lucro_emprestimo = similar(demanda_k_emprestimo);
for i in eachindex(posicao_bancos)
demanda_k_emprestimo[i,:,:] , demanda_l_emprestimo[i,:,:] , lucro_emprestimo[i,:,:] = problema_firma_emprestimo(r,w,r_emprestimo[i],posicao,posicao_bancos[i]);
end
Is there a fast and clean way of doing this using vectorized functions? Something like problema_firma_emprestimo.(r,w,r_emprestimo[i],posicao,posicao_bancos) ? When I do this, I got a tuple with the result, but I can't find a good way of unpacking the answer.
Thanks!
Unfortunately, it's not easy to use broadcasting here, since then you will end up with output that is an array of tuples, instead of a tuple of arrays. I think a loop is a very good approach, and has no performance penalty compared to broadcasting.
I would suggest, however, that you organize your output array dimensions differently, so that i indexes into the last dimension instead of the first:
for i in eachindex(posicao_bancos)
demanda_k_emprestimo[:, :, i] , ...
end
This is because Julia arrays are column major, and this way the output values are filled into the output arrays in the most efficient way. You could also consider making the output arrays into vectors of matrices, instead of 3D arrays.
On a side note: since you are (or should be) creating an MWE for the sake of the people answering, it would be better if you used shorter and less confusing variable names. In particular for people who don't understand Portuguese (I'm guessing), your variable names are super long, confusing and make the code visually dense. Telling the difference between demanda_k_emprestimo and demanda_l_emprestimo at a glance is hard. The meaning of the variables are not important either, so it's better to just call them A and B or X and Y, and the functions foo or something.
I'm optimizing a more complex code, but got stuck with this problem.
a<-array(sample(c(1:10),100,replace=TRUE),c(10,10))
m<-array(sample(c(1:10),100,replace=TRUE),c(10,10))
f<-array(sample(c(1:10),100,replace=TRUE),c(10,10))
g<-array(NA,c(10,10))
I need to use the values in a & m to index f and assign the value from f to g
i.e. g[1,1]<-f[a[1,1],m[1,1]] except for all the indexes, and as optimally/fast as possible
I could obviously make a for loop to do this for me but that seems rather dumb and slow. It seems like I should be able to us something in the apply family, but I've had no luck with figuring out how to do that. I do need to keep the data structured as it is here so that I can use matrix operations in different parts of my code. I've been searching for an answer to this but haven't found anything particularly helpful yet.
g[] <- f[cbind(c(a), c(m))]
This takes advantage of the fact that matrices can be addressed as vectors and using a matrix as the index.
I'm learning R programming, and trying to understand the best approach to work with a vector when you don't know the final size it will end up being. For example, in my case I need to build the vector inside a for loop, but only for some iterations, which aren't know beforehand.
METHOD 1
I could run through the loop a first time to determine the final vector length, initialize the vector to the correct length, then run through the loop a second time to populate the vector. This would be ideal from a memory usage standpoint, since the vector memory would occupy the required amount of memory.
METHOD 2
Or, I could use one for loop, and simply append to the vector as needed, but this would be inefficient from a memory allocation standpoint since a new block may need to be assigned each time a new element is appended to the vector. If you're working with big data, this could be a problem.
METHOD 3
In C or Matlab, I usually initialize the vector length to the largest possible length that I know the final vector could occupy, then populate a subset of elements in the for loop. When the loop completes, I'll re-size the vector length appropriately.
Since R is used a lot in data science, I thought this would be a topic others would have encountered and there may be a best practice that was recommended. Any thoughts?
Canonical R code would use lapply or similar to run the function on each element, then combine the results in some way. This avoids the need to grow a vector or know the size ahead of time. This is the functional programming approach to things. For example,
set.seed(5)
x <- runif(10)
some_fun <- function(x) {
if (x > 0.5) {
return(x)
} else {
return(NULL)
}
}
unlist(lapply(x, some_fun))
The size of the result vector is not specified, but is determined automatically by combining results.
Keep in mind that this is a trivial example for illustration. This particular operation could be vectorized.
I think Method1 is the best approach if you have a very large amount of data. But in general you might want to read this chapter before you make a final decision:
http://adv-r.had.co.nz/memory.html
Suppose I have an 2 dimensional array and I want to apply several functions to each of its columns. Ideally I would like to get the results back in the form of a matrix (with one row per function, and one column per input column).
The following code generates the values I want, but as an Array of Arrays.
A = rand(10,10)
[mapslices(f, A, 1) for f in [mean median iqr]]
Another similar example is here [Julia: use of pmap with matrices
Is there a better syntax for getting the results back in the form of a 2 dimensional array, instead of an array of arrays?
What I'd really like is something with a functionality similar to sapply from R. [https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/base/html/lapply.html]
You can use an anonymous function as in
mapslices(t -> [mean(t), median(t), iqr(t)], A, 1)
but using comprehensions and splatting, as in your last example, is also fine. For very large arrays, you might want to avoid the temporary allocations introduced by transpose and splatting, but in most cases you don't have to pay attention to that.
After playing around a bit I found one option, but I am still interested in hearing if there are any better ways of doing it.
[[mapslices(f, A, 1)' for f in [mean median iqr]]...]
I am totally convinced that an efficient R programm should avoid using loops whenever possible and instead should use the big family of the apply functions.
But this cannot happen without pain.
For example I face with a problem whose solution involves a sum in the applied function, as a result the list of results is reduced to a single value, which is not what I want.
To be concrete I will try to simplify my problem
assume N =100
sapply(list(1:N), function(n) (
choose(n,(floor(n/2)+1):n) *
eps^((floor(n/2)+1):n) *
(1- eps)^(n-((floor(n/2)+1):n))))
As you can see the function inside cause length of the built vector to explode
whereas using the sum inside would collapse everything to single value
sapply(list(1:N), function(n) (
choose(n,(floor(n/2)+1):n) *
eps^((floor(n/2)+1):n) *
(1- eps)^(n-((floor(n/2)+1):n))))
What I would like to have is a the list of degree of N.
so what do you think? how can I repair it?
Your question doesn't contain reproducible code (what's "eps"?), but on the general point about for loops and optimising code:
For loops are not incredibly slow. For loops are incredibly slow when used improperly because of how memory is assigned to objects. For primitive objects (like vectors), modifying a value in a field has a tiny cost - but expanding the /length/ of the vector is fairly costly because what you're actually doing is creating an entirely new object, finding space for that object, copying the name over, removing the old object, etc. For non-primitive objects (say, data frames), it's even more costly because every modification, even if it doesn't alter the length of the data.frame, triggers this process.
But: there are ways to optimise a for loop and make them run quickly. The easiest guidelines are:
Do not run a for loop that writes to a data.frame. Use plyr or dplyr, or data.table, depending on your preference.
If you are using a vector and can know the length of the output in advance, it will work a lot faster. Specify the size of the output object before writing to it.
Do not twist yourself into knots avoiding for loops.
So in this case - if you're only producing a single value for each thing in N, you could make that work perfectly nicely with a vector:
#Create output object. We're specifying the length in advance so that writing to
#it is cheap
output <- numeric(length = length(N))
#Start the for loop
for(i in seq_along(output)){
output[i] <- your_computations_go_here(N[i])
}
This isn't actually particularly slow - because you're writing to a vector and you've specified the length in advance. And since data.frames are actually lists of equally-sized vectors, you can even work around some issues with running for loops over data.frames using this; if you're only writing to a single column in the data.frame, just create it as a vector and then write it to the data.frame via df$new_col <- output. You'll get the same output as if you had looped through the data.frame, but it'll work faster because you'll only have had to modify it once.