I come from a Java/Python comp sci theory background so I am still getting used to the various R packages and how they can save run time in functions.
Basically, I am working on a few projects and all of them involve taking individual factors in a long-list data set (15,000 to 200,000 factors) and performing calculations on individual factors in an equally-large data set, and concurrently storing the results of those calculations in an exponentially-longer data frame.
So far I have been using nested while loops and concatenating into a growing list, but that is taking days. Ive recently learned about 'lapply' and the 'data.frame' options in R, and I would love to see an example of how to apply (no pun intended) them to the following basic correlation function:
Corr<-function(miRdf, mRNAdf)
{
j=1
k=1
m=1
n=1
c=0
corrList=NULL
while(n<=71521)
{
while(m<=1477)
{
corr=cor(as.numeric(miRdf[k,2:13]), as.numeric(mRNAdf[j,2:13]), use ="complete.obs")
corrList<-c(corrList, corr)
j=j+1
c=c+1
print(c) #just a counter to see how far the function has run
m=m+1
}
k=k+1
n=n+1
j=1
m=1 #to reset the inner while loop
}
corrList<-matrix(unlist(corrList), ncol=1477, byrow=FALSE)
colnames(corrList)<-miRdf[,1]
rownames(corrList)<-mRNAdf[,1]
write.csv(corrList, "testCorrWhole.csv")
}
As you can see, the nested while loop results in 105,636,517 (71521x1477) miRNA vs mRNA expression-value correlation scores that need to be performed and stored in a data frame that is 1477 cols x 71521 rows in order to generate a scoring matrix.
My question is, can anyone shed light on how to turn the above monstrosity into an efficient function that utilizes 'lapply' instead of the while loops, and uses the 'data.table' set() function to do away with the inefficiency of concatenating a list during every pass through the loop?
Thank you in advance!
Your names end with 'df', which makes it seem like your data are a data.frame. But #Troy's answer uses a matrix. A matrix is appropriate when the data are homogeneous, and generally matrix operations are much faster than data.frame operations. So you can see already that if you'd provided a small example of your data set (e.g., dput(mRNAdf[1:10,]) that people might be in a better position to help you; this is what they're asking for.
In large numerical calculations it makes sense to 'hoist' any repeated calculations outside the loop, so they are performed only once. Repeated calculations in your case include sub-setting to columns 2:13, and coercion to numeric. With this idea, and guessing that you actually have a data.frame where each column is already a numeric vector, I'd start with
mRNAmatrix <- as.matrix(mRNAdf[,2:13])
miRmatrix <- as.matrix(miRdf[,2:13])
From the help page ?cor we see that the arguments can be a matrix, and if so the correlation is calculated between columns. You're interested in the result when the arguments are transposed relative to your current representation. So
result <- cor(t(mRNAmatrix), t(miRmatrix), use="complete.obs")
This is fast enough for your purposes
> m1 = matrix(rnorm(71521 * 12), 71521)
> m2 = matrix(rnorm(1477 * 12), 1477)
> system.time(ans <- cor(t(m1), t(m2)))
user system elapsed
9.124 0.200 9.340
> dim(ans)
[1] 71521 1477
result is the same as your corrList -- it's not a list, but a matrix; probably the row and column names have been carried forward. You'd write this to a file as you do above, write.csv(result, "testCorrWhole.csv")
UPDATED BELOW TO SHOW PARALLEL PROCESSING - ABOUT A 60% SAVING
Using apply() might not be quick enough for you. Here's how to do it, though. Will have a think about performance since this example (1M output correlations in 1000x1000 grid) takes over a minute on laptop.
miRdf=matrix(rnorm(13000,10,1),ncol=13)
mRNAdf=matrix(rnorm(13000,10,1),ncol=13)
miRdf[,1]<-1:nrow(miRdf) # using column 1 as indices since they're not in the calc.
mRNAdf[,1]<-1:nrow(mRNAdf)
corRow<-function(y){
apply(miRdf,1,function(x)cor(as.numeric(x[2:13]), as.numeric(mRNAdf[y,2:13]), use ="complete.obs"))
}
system.time(apply(mRNAdf,1,function(x)corRow(x[1])))
# user system elapsed
# 72.94 0.00 73.39
And with parallel::parApply on a 4 core Win64 laptop
require(parallel) ## Library to allow parallel processing
miRdf=matrix(rnorm(13000,10,1),ncol=13)
mRNAdf=matrix(rnorm(13000,10,1),ncol=13)
miRdf[,1]<-1:nrow(miRdf) # using column 1 as indices since they're not in the calc.
mRNAdf[,1]<-1:nrow(mRNAdf)
corRow<-function(y){
apply(miRdf,1,function(x)cor(as.numeric(x[2:13]), as.numeric(mRNAdf[y,2:13]), use ="complete.obs"))
}
# Make a cluster from all available cores
cl=makeCluster(detectCores())
# Use clusterExport() to distribute the function and data.frames needed in the apply() call
clusterExport(cl,c("corRow","miRdf","mRNAdf"))
# time the call
system.time(parApply(cl,mRNAdf,1,function(x)corRow(x[[1]])))
# Stop the cluster
stopCluster(cl)
# time the call without clustering
system.time(apply(mRNAdf,1,function(x)corRow(x[[1]])))
## WITH CLUSTER (4)
user system elapsed
0.04 0.03 29.94
## WITHOUT CLUSTER
user system elapsed
73.96 0.00 74.46
Related
I have a function, as follows, that takes a design matrix X with class type big.matrix as input and predicts the responses.
NOTE: the size of matrix X is over 10 GB. So I cannot load it into memory. I used read.big.matrix() to generate backing files X.bin and X.desc.
myfun <- function(X) {
## do something with X. class(X) == 'big.matrix'
}
My question is that, how I can do cross validation efficiently with this huge big.matrix?
My attempt: (It works, but is time consuming.)
Step 1: for each fold, get indices for training idx.train and test idx.test;
Step 2: divide X into X.train and X.test. Since X.train and X.test are also very large, I have to store them as big.matrix, and create associated backing files (.bin, .desc) for the training and test sets for each fold.
Step 3: feed the X.train to build the model, and predict responses for X.test.
The time-consuming part is Step 2, where I have to create backing files for training and test (almost like copy/paste the original big matrix) many times. For example, suppose I do 10-fold cross validation. Step 2 would take over 30 minutes for creating backing files for all 10 folds!
To solving this issue in Step 2, I think maybe I can divide the original matrix into 10 sub matrices (of class type big.matrix) just once. Then for each fold, I use one portion for testing, and combine the remaining 9 portions as one big matrix for training. But the new issue is, there is no way to combine small big.matrix into a larger one efficiently without copy/paste.
Of course I can do distributed computing for this cross validation procedure. But I am just wondering whether there is a better way to speed up the procedure if just using a single core.
Any ideas? Thanks in advance.
UPDATE:
It turns out that #cdeterman's answer doesn't work when X is very large. The reason is that the mpermute() function permutes the rows by essentially doing copy/paste. mpermute() calls ReorderRNumericMatrix() in C++, which then calls reorder_matrix() function. This function reorders the matrix by looping over all columns and rows and doing copy/paste. See the source code here.
Are there any better ideas for solving my problem?? Thanks.
END UPDATE
You will want to use the sub.big.matrix function. This avoids any further copies and points the same original data. However, it can currently only subset contiguous rows. So you will want to permute your rows first.
# Step 1 - generate random indices
idx <- sample(nrow(X), nrow(X))
mpermute(X, idx)
# Step 2 - create your folds
max <- nrow(bm)/10 # assuming 10 folds
idx_list <- split(seq(nrow(bm)), ceiling(seq(nrow(bm))/max))
# Step 3 - list of sub.big.matrix objects
sm_list <- lapply(idx_list, function(x) sub.big.matrix(bm, firstRow = x[1], lastRow = x[length(x)]))
You now have the original big.matrix split into 10 different matrices that you can use as you like.
I am still quite new to r (used to program in Matlab) and I am trying use the parallel package to speed up some calculations. Below is an example which I am trying to calculate the rolling standard deviation of a matrix (by column) with the use of zoo package, with and without parallelising the codes. However, the shape of the outputs came out to be different.
# load library
library('zoo')
library('parallel')
library('snow')
# Data
z <- matrix(runif(1000000,0,1),100,1000)
#This is what I want to calculate with timing
system.time(zz <- rollapply(z,10,sd,by.column=T, fill=NA))
# Trying to achieve the same output with parallel computing
cl<-makeSOCKcluster(4)
clusterEvalQ(cl, library(zoo))
system.time(yy <-parCapply(cl,z,function(x) rollapplyr(x,10,sd,fill=NA)))
stopCluster(cl)
My first output zz has the same dimensions as input z, whereas output yy is a vector rather than a matrix. I understand that I can do something like matrix(yy,nrow(z),ncol(z)) however I would like to know if I have done something wrong or if there is a better way of coding to improve this. Thank you.
From the documentation:
parRapply and parCapply always return a vector. If FUN always returns
a scalar result this will be of length the number of rows or columns:
otherwise it will be the concatenation of the returned values.
And:
parRapply and parCapply are parallel row and column apply functions
for a matrix x; they may be slightly more efficient than parApply but
do less post-processing of the result.
So, I'd suggest you use parApply.
I am trying to parse a huge dataset into R (1.3Gb). The original data is a list comprised of four million of characters, being each one of them an observation of 137 variables.
First I've created a function that separates the character according to the key provided in the dataset, where "d" is each one of the characters. For the purpose of this question imagine that d has this form
"2005400d"
and the key would be
varName <- c("YEAR","AGE","GENDER","STATUS")
varIn <- c(1,5,7,8)
varEND <- c(4,6,7,8)
where varIn and varEnd track the splitting points. The function created was.
parseLine<-function(d){
k<-unlist(strsplit(d,""))
vec<-rep(NA,length(varName))
for (i in 1:length(varName)){
vec[i]<-paste(k[varIn[i]:varEnd[i]],sep="",collapse="")
}
return(vec)
}
And then in order to loop over all the data available, I've created a for loop.
df<-data.frame(matrix(ncol=length(varName)))
names(df)<-as.character(varName)
for (i in 1:length(data)){
df<-rbind(df,parseLine(data[i]))
}
However when I check the function with 1,000 iterations I got a system time of 10.82 seconds, but when I increase that to 10,000 instead of having a time of 108.2 seconds I've got a time of 614.77 which indicates that as the number of iterations increases the time needed would increase exponentially.
Any suggestion for speeding up the process? I've tried to use the library foreach, but it didn't use the parallel as I expected.
m<-foreach(i=1:10,.combine=rbind) %dopar% parseLine(data[i])
df<-a
names(df)<-as.character(varName)
Why re-invent the wheel? Use read.fwf in the utils package (attached by default)
> dat <- "2005400d"
> varName <- c("YEAR","AGE","GENDER","STATUS")
> varIn <- c(1,5,7,8)
> varEND <- c(4,6,7,8)
> read.fwf(textConnection(dat), col.names=varName, widths=1+varEND-varIn)
YEAR AGE GENDER STATUS
1 2005 40 0 d
You should get further efficiency if you specify colClasses but my effort to demonstrate this failed to show a difference. Perhaps that advice only applies to read.table and cousins.
I have a list with hundreds of columns and rows. What I'm doing is looping through nearly every possible iteration of taking the difference between two columns. For example take the difference between 1st and 2nd column, 1st and 3rd column..1st and 500th column... 499th column and 500th column. Once I have those differences I compute some descriptive statistics (ie. mean, st dev, kurtosis, skewness, etc) for output. I know I can use lapply to calculate those statistics for each column individually but sd(x)-sd(y) <> sd(x-y) so it doesn't really cut down much on my looping. I can use avg(x)-avg(y)=avg(x-y) but that's the only statistic where I can use this property.
Here's some pseudo code that I have:
for (n1 in 1:(number of columns) {
for (n2 in n1:(number of columns) {
temp<-bigdata[n1]-bigdata[n2]
results[abc]<-(maxdrawdown,mean,skewness,kurtosis,count,st dev,
median, downsidedeviation)
}
}
Doing it this way can take literally days so I'm looking for some improvements. I'm already using Compiler with enableJIT(3) which actually does make it noticeably faster. I had a couple other ideas and any incites would be helpful. One is trying to utilize the snowfall package (still trying to get my head around how to implement it) with the thought that one core could compute skew and kurtosis while the other computes the other statistics. The other idea is creating big chunks of temp (ie. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4) as another data.frame (or list) so as to use lapply against it to knock out many iterations at once. Would this make much of a difference? Is there anything else I can do that I'm not even thinking of?
A reproducible example would really help, because the way you describe your problem are confusing (e.g. lists don't have rows/columns). My guess is that bigdata and results are data.frames, in which case converting each of them to a matrix will make your loops appreciably faster.
I don't know if it will be any faster, but the following might make the code a bit easier to read if not faster, although it should get a bit faster as well because you've eliminated the for() ....
Try using expand.grid(), which I tend to use less often than I probably should
For instance:
nC <- 3 # Num of cols
nR <- 4 # Num of cols
indices <- expand.grid(nC, nC)
# Now you can use apply cleanly
apply(indices, 1,
function(x) {
c1 <- x[1]; c2 <- x[2]
yourResult[c1,c2] <- doYourThing(bigData[,c1], bigData[,c2])
}
)
Well, you get the idea. :-)
A recurring analysis paradigm I encounter in my research is the need to subset based on all different group id values, performing statistical analysis on each group in turn, and putting the results in an output matrix for further processing/summarizing.
How I typically do this in R is something like the following:
data.mat <- read.csv("...")
groupids <- unique(data.mat$ID) #Assume there are then 100 unique groups
results <- matrix(rep("NA",300),ncol=3,nrow=100)
for(i in 1:100) {
tempmat <- subset(data.mat,ID==groupids[i])
# Run various stats on tempmat (correlations, regressions, etc), checking to
# make sure this specific group doesn't have NAs in the variables I'm using
# and assign results to x, y, and z, for example.
results[i,1] <- x
results[i,2] <- y
results[i,3] <- z
}
This ends up working for me, but depending on the size of the data and the number of groups I'm working with, this can take up to three days.
Besides branching out into parallel processing, is there any "trick" for making something like this run faster? For instance, converting the loops into something else (something like an apply with a function containing the stats I want to run inside the loop), or eliminating the need to actually assign the subset of data to a variable?
Edit:
Maybe this is just common knowledge (or sampling error), but I tried subsetting with brackets in some of my code rather than using the subset command, and it seemed to provide a slight performance gain which surprised me. I have some code I used and output below using the same object names as above:
system.time(for(i in 1:1000){data.mat[data.mat$ID==groupids[i],]})
user system elapsed
361.41 92.62 458.32
system.time(for(i in 1:1000){subset(data.mat,ID==groupids[i])})
user system elapsed
378.44 102.03 485.94
Update:
In one of the answers, jorgusch suggested that I use the data.table package to speed up my subsetting. So, I applied it to a problem I ran earlier this week. In a dataset with a little over 1,500,000 rows, and 4 columns (ID,Var1,Var2,Var3), I wanted to calculate two correlations in each group (indexed by the "ID" variable). There are slightly more than 50,000 groups. Below is my initial code (which is very similar to the above):
data.mat <- read.csv("//home....")
groupids <- unique(data.mat$ID)
results <- matrix(rep("NA",(length(groupids) * 3)),ncol=3,nrow=length(groupids))
for(i in 1:length(groupids)) {
tempmat <- data.mat[data.mat$ID==groupids[i],]
results[i,1] <- groupids[i]
results[i,2] <- cor(tempmat$Var1,tempmat$Var2,use="pairwise.complete.obs")
results[i,3] <- cor(tempmat$Var1,tempmat$Var3,use="pairwise.complete.obs")
}
I'm re-running that right now for an exact measure of how long that took, but from what I remember, I started it running when I got into the office in the morning and it finished sometime in the mid-afternoon. Figure 5-7 hours.
Restructuring my code to use data.table....
data.mat <- read.csv("//home....")
data.mat <- data.table(data.mat)
testfunc <- function(x,y,z) {
temp1 <- cor(x,y,use="pairwise.complete.obs")
temp2 <- cor(x,z,use="pairwise.complete.obs")
res <- list(temp1,temp2)
res
}
system.time(test <- data.mat[,testfunc(Var1,Var2,Var3),by="ID"])
user system elapsed
16.41 0.05 17.44
Comparing the results using data.table to the ones I got from using a for loop to subset all IDs and record results manually, they seem to have given me the same answers(though I'll have to check that a bit more thoroughly). That looks to be a pretty big speed increase.
Update 2:
Running the code using subsets finally finished up again:
user system elapsed
17575.79 4247.41 23477.00
Update 3:
I wanted to see if anything worked out differently using the plyr package that was also recommended. This is my first time using it, so I may have done things somewhat inefficiently, but it still helped substantially compared to the for loop with subsetting.
Using the same variables and setup as before...
data.mat <- read.csv("//home....")
system.time(hmm <- ddply(data.mat,"ID",function(df)c(cor(df$Var1,df$Var2, use="pairwise.complete.obs"),cor(df$Var1,df$Var3,use="pairwise.complete.obs"))))
user system elapsed
250.25 7.35 272.09
This is pretty much exactly what the plyr package is designed to make easier. However it's unlikely that it will make things much faster - most of the time is probably spent doing the statistics.
Besides plyr, you can try to use foreach package to exclude explicit loop counter, but I don't know if it will give you any performance benefits.
Foreach, neverless, gives you a quite simple interface to parallel chunk processing if you have multicore workstation (with doMC/multicore packages) (check Getting Started with doMC and foreach for details), if you exclude parallel processing only because it is not very easy to understand for students. If it is not the only reason, plyr is very good solution IMHO.
Personally, I find plyr not very easy to understand. I prefer data.table which is also faster. For instance you want to do the standard deviation of colum my_column for each ID.
dt <- datab.table[df] # one time operation...changing format of df to table
result.sd <- dt[,sd(my_column),by="ID"] # result with each ID and SD in second column
Three statements of this kind and a cbind at the end - that is all you need.
You can also use dt do some action for only one ID without a subset command in an new syntax:
result.sd.oneiD<- dt[ID="oneID",sd(my_column)]
The first statment refers to rows (i), the second to columns (j).
If find it easier to read then player and it is more flexible, as you can also do sub domains within a "subset"...
The documentation describes that it uses SQL-like methods. For instance, the by is pretty much "group by" in SQL. Well, if you know SQL, you can probably do much more, but it is not necessary to make use of the package.
Finally, it is extremely fast, as each operation is not only parallel, but also data.table grabs the data needed for calculation. Subset, however, maintain the levels of the whole matrix and drag it trough the memory.
You have already suggested vectorizing and avoiding making unnecessary copies of intermediate results, so you are certainly on the right track. Let me caution you not to do what i did and just assume that vectorizing will always give you a performance boost (like it does in other languages, e.g., Python + NumPy, MATLAB).
An example:
# small function to time the results:
time_this = function(...) {
start.time = Sys.time(); eval(..., sys.frame(sys.parent(sys.parent())));
end.time = Sys.time(); print(end.time - start.time)
}
# data for testing: a 10000 x 1000 matrix of random doubles
a = matrix(rnorm(1e7, mean=5, sd=2), nrow=10000)
# two versions doing the same thing: calculating the mean for each row
# in the matrix
x = time_this( for (i in 1:nrow(a)){ mean( a[i,] ) } )
y = time_this( apply(X=a, MARGIN=1, FUN=mean) )
print(x) # returns => 0.5312099
print(y) # returns => 0.661242
The 'apply' version is actually slower than the 'for' version. (According to the Inferno author, if you are doing this you are not vectorizing, you are 'loop hiding'.)
But where you can get a performance boost is by using built-ins. Below, i've timed the same operation as the two above, just using the built-in function, 'rowMeans':
z = time_this(rowMeans(a))
print(z) # returns => 0.03679609
An order of magnitude improvement versus the 'for' loop (and the vectorized version).
The other members of the apply family are not just wrappers over a native 'for' loop.
a = abs(floor(10*rnorm(1e6)))
time_this(sapply(a, sqrt))
# returns => 6.64 secs
time_this(for (i in 1:length(a)){ sqrt(a[i])})
# returns => 1.33 secs
'sapply' is about 5x slower compared with a 'for' loop.
Finally, w/r/t vectorized versus 'for' loops, i don't think i ever use a loop if i can use a vectorized function--the latter is usually less keystrokes and and it's a more natural way (for me) to code, which is a different kind of performance boost, i suppose.