RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 6 03:15:42 CEST 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-June/134834.html

Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> writes:
> Such optimizations are important enough that numpy operations always
> give the option of explicitly specifying the output array (like
> in-place operators but more general and with clumsier syntax). Here's
> an example small-array benchmark that IIUC uses Jacobi iteration to
> solve Laplace's equation. It's been written in both natural and
> hand-optimized formats (compare "num_update" to "num_inplace"):
>
>    https://yarikoptic.github.io/numpy-vbench/vb_vb_app.html#laplace-inplace
>
> num_inplace is totally unreadable, but because we've manually elided
> temporaries, it's 10-15% faster than num_update. 

Does it really have to be that ugly? Shouldn't using

  tmp += u[2:,1:-1]
  tmp *= dy2

instead of

  np.add(tmp, u[2:,1:-1], out=tmp)
  np.multiply(tmp, dy2, out=tmp)

give the same performance? (yes, not as nice as what you're proposing,
but I'm still curious).

Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-June/134834.html below:

[Python-Dev] [numpy wishlist] Interpreter support for temporary elision in third-party classes