Vectorise or Parallel Computing

Question

Mingzhi Shihua 2019-11-20

0
链接

此问题的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/492181-vectorise-or-parallel-computing

评论： Mingzhi Shihua 2019-11-24

Can this for loop be vectorized or use parfor instead? If so, how should I do it?

for edgeID = 1:size(IE,1)
    self = selfs(edgeID);
    sdl(self) = sdl(self)+sdl_edge(edgeID); % add frac to self
    res(:,self) = res(:,self)+flux_edge(:,edgeID); % add flux to self residual
end % internal edge iteration ends

"selfs" is an array with some order. That means I want to loop over this "order array" and fill in some value according to that order (not in the order of 12345).

I have tried several ways but failed...

2 个评论
显示无隐藏无

Jan 2019-11-20

编辑：Jan 2019-11-20

Some example data would be nice, because then we can test the suggestions without needing to invent inputs. self is not unqiue, isn't it?

Mingzhi Shihua 2019-11-21

在 MATLAB Online 中打开

self is something like [2,4,7,8,5,9,1,0,3,6,8,2,5,6]. When I loop over index = 1,2,3,... I need an array in that order 2,4,7,... to update accordingly. Exact variables are uploaded. Initialize sdl and res

sdl = zeros(1,7219);
res = zeros(5,7219);

This indicates that all element in self will not exceed 7219.

请先登录，再进行评论。

请先登录，再回答此问题。

Answer 1

Jan 2019-11-21

0
链接

此回答的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/492181-vectorise-or-parallel-computing#answer_402577

在 MATLAB Online 中打开

This loop cannot be parallelized. If flux_edge is a vector and not a matrix, accumarray would solve the problem efficiently. Try this:

% UNTESTED and most likey BUGGY!
sdl(selfs)    = accumarray(selfs, sdl_edge);
resCell       = splitapply(@(c) {sum(c, 2)}, flux_edge, selfs);
res(:, selfs) = cat(2, resCell{:});

The values of selfs are missing. Therefore I cannot test the code and I assume, it contains serious bugs. I assume you can find the remaining problems and modify the code until it solves your needs.

If the problem is time-critical (the bottleneck of the total program), I'd write a C-mex function. Accumulating in cells and joining them afterwards is not efficient for the memory consumption.

The size of selfs matters. It might be more efficient to collect the equal values at first by unique and run the loop over this list:

% UNTESTED
v   = unique(selfs);
sdl = zeros(1, 7219);
res = zeros(5, 7219);
for iv = 1:numel(v)
    av         = v(iv);
    mask       = (selfs == av);
    sdl(av)    = sum(sdl_edge(mask));
    res(:, av) = sum(flux_edge(:, mask), 2);
end

If this has a fair speed, you can parallelize it with parfor.

% UNTESTED
v   = unique(selfs);
nv  = numel(v);
A   = zeros(1, nv);
B   = zeros(5, nv);
parfor iv = 1:nv
    av         = v(iv);
    mask       = (selfs == av);
    A(iv)    = sum(sdl_edge(mask));
    B(:, iv) = sum(flux_edge(:, mask), 2);
end
sdl       = zeros(1, 7219);
sdl(v)    = A;
res       = zeros(5, 7219);
res(:, v) = B;

4 个评论
显示 2更早的评论隐藏 2更早的评论

Jan 2019-11-23

Sorry, the original code needs 0.002 seconds on my R2018b system. I do not see a way to accelerate this substantially, because this very fast already. My suggestion solutions are ways slower than the original approach.

Do you work with much larger problems than the posted data?

Mingzhi Shihua 2019-11-24

Actually the whole code involves more than 20000 times repetition of that part. Of course, self_edge and flux_edge changes each time. But I think, yes, you are right, the most time consuming part should be updating those two.

请先登录，再进行评论。