I need to feed to an external program a number of points (in Complex128 format) generated from the numerical evaluation of some function, e.g. $e^{i \vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}$. The function is evaluated at points of some evenly spaced grid. I currently generate the values with Table (possibly multidimensional, and then Flatten'd) and send it to a file with BinaryWrite. However, this is rather slow, because I use a number of points in the order of $2^{24}$ or more. I tried with ParallelTable, but I inspected with perf and it appears that when transferring the data to the main kernel there's a lot of UTF string encoding going on for whatever reason, which defeats the speedup in the parallelization.

Is there any smarter way to accomplish what I need?

  • $\begingroup$ I think you need to be more specific. What are the values? Are the values you generate a function of, say, the position in the (multidimensional) table? $\endgroup$ – Marius Ladegård Meyer Dec 10 '15 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ Taking the example in the question, I need to generate the values of $e^{ikx}$ for a fixed $k$ and for $x = 0, .., 100$. I clarified in the question that the function is evaluated on some grid. $\endgroup$ – Lorenzo Pistone Dec 10 '15 at 11:25

In cases like this where the function to be evaluated a) has the Listable attribute, and b) is not very compicated, we can get a huge benefit from exploiting this listability. In my experience, exploiting vectorized operations, listability and packed arrays, along with occational compilation to C, usually has a much larger impact on speed than parallellizing.

One dimension

For k = 2.5 and $2^{24}$ points:

First@AbsoluteTiming[ans1 = Exp[I*2.5*Range[2^24]]];
(* 1.270682 *)

First@AbsoluteTiming[ans2 = Table[Exp[I*2.5*x], {x, 2^24}]];
(* 19.620243 *)

First@AbsoluteTiming[ans3 = Exp /@ (I*2.5*Range[2^24])];
(* 3.358687 *)

ans1 == ans2 == ans3
(* True *)

Note that the last one uses the Listable attribute of Times, but not of Exp. On my machine it's still way faster than Table though.

Three dimensions

Since $e^{a+b} = e^a e^b$ we can still do most of the calculation vectorized. Note that we don't need a square grid. For $\vec{k} = \{k_x, k_y, k_z\} = \{2.5, 3.5, 4.5\}$:

(* using Table *)
  ans1 = Table[Exp[I (k1 x + k2 y + k3 z)]
  , {x, 100}, {y, 101}, {z, 102}];
(* 1.979192 *)

(* using Table, but vectorizing over one coordinate *)
  ans2 = Table[Exp[I (k1 x + k2 y + k3 Range[102])]
  , {x, 100}, {y, 101}];
(* 0.225951 *)

(* My favorite *)
  x = Exp[I k1 Range[100]];
  y = Exp[I k2 Range[101]]; 
  z = Exp[I k3 Range[102]];
  ans3 = Outer[Times, x, y, z];
(* 0.028202 *)

They are equal up to roundoff:

Chop[ans1 - ans2] == Chop[ans1 - ans3] == ConstantArray[0, {100, 101, 102}]
(* True *)

More complicated example

When the function to be evaluated is not easily split into parts that depend only on one component, I usually check this list to see if it can be compiled. If for instance the function is

f[x_, y_, z_] := Sin[2x + Exp[I(x + y*z)]]

we find:

First@AbsoluteTiming[ans1 = Table[f[x, y, z], {x, 100}, {y, 101}, {z, 102}];]
(* 4.599261 *)

First@AbsoluteTiming[ans2 = Outer[f, Range[100], Range[101], Range[102]];]
(* 3.056824 *)

(* We can still vectorize over one coordinate *)
First@AbsoluteTiming[ans3 = Table[f[x, y, Range[102]], {x, 100}, {y, 101}];]
(* 1.463473 *)

But here, a compiled function is much faster:

comp = Compile[{},
  Table[Sin[2 x + Exp[I (x + y*z)]]
  ,{x, 100}, {y, 101}, {z, 102}], 
  CompilationTarget -> "C", RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
First@AbsoluteTiming[ans4 = comp[];]
(* 0.145347 *)
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oddly enough the Fourier transform can be competitive until n is quite large. Only applies if the grid divides the unit circle into equal segments though. A modification of the example above should show what I mean. In[501]:= n = 25; ivec = UnitVector[2^n, 2]; Timing[ans1 = Fourier[ivec];] AbsoluteTiming[ ans2 = Exp[2.*Pi*I*Range[0, 2^n - 1]/2.^n]/Sqrt[2.^n];] Max[Abs[ans1 - ans2]] Out[503]= {2.229677, Null} Out[504]= {1.564221, Null} Out[505]= 1.53329341668*10^-19 $\endgroup$ – Daniel Lichtblau Dec 10 '15 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ I get the gist of it. However I'm thinking how this could be extended to the vector case (or in other words when the function depends on multiple variables). $\endgroup$ – Lorenzo Pistone Dec 10 '15 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ Very thorough, thanks. $\endgroup$ – Lorenzo Pistone Dec 11 '15 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ Impressive usage of Outer $\endgroup$ – matheorem Dec 15 '15 at 12:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.