How to avoid for loops when generating index arrays?
1 次查看(过去 30 天)
显示 更早的评论
I often find myself coding nested for loops to generate vectors of integer indices. For example:
n = 4;
i = 1;
for L = 0:n
for M = -L:L
l(i) = L;
m(i) = M;
i = i+1;
end
end
All I need are the vectors "l" and "m". I can preallocate to save some speed, but my real problem is having to use the for loops as sometimes the index vectors I need to create have many more nested for loops whose (note that the inner loop index depends on the outer loop index).
Is there a simple way to avoid using loops to generate index vectors like these?
0 个评论
采纳的回答
Matt J
2013-4-30
Here's another method, less memory consuming than NDGRID
mm=sparse(-n:n);
ll=sparse(0:n);
map=bsxfun(@le,abs(mm.'),ll);
idx=nonzeros(bsxfun(@times,map,1:length(ll) ));
l=full(ll(idx));
idx=nonzeros(bsxfun(@times,map,(1:length(mm)).')) ;
m=full(mm(idx));
0 个评论
更多回答(5 个)
Roger Stafford
2013-4-30
编辑:Matt J
2013-4-30
For your particular problem you can do this:
M = (0:n*(n+2))';
L = floor(sqrt(M));
M = M-L.*(L+1);
(I've used uppercase letters, 'L' and 'M', in place of your lowercase 'l' and 'm'.)
As with Matt Kindig, I am not sure this will be any faster than your for-loops. Time it with a large value for n and see.
0 个评论
Matt J
2013-4-30
编辑:Matt J
2013-4-30
Here's a way to do it using NDGRID. It's not apriori obvious whether for loops would or would not be faster. It depends what you plan to reuse.
[mg,lg]=ndgrid(-n:n,0:n);
idx=abs(mg)<=lg;
l=lg(idx).',
m=mg(idx).',
6 个评论
Matt J
2013-5-1
编辑:Matt J
2013-5-2
I'm starting to think Sean's advice about sticking with for-loops is the best one. There can definitely be ways to cut down on the loop nesting (see my newest Answer based on cell arrays), but the required form would depend on the body of the original set of for-loops.
Sean de Wolski
2013-4-30
编辑:Sean de Wolski
2013-4-30
doc meshgrid
doc ndgrid %?
:)
And of course, depending on your application, two nested for-loops or bsxfun() might be better.
2 个评论
Sean de Wolski
2013-4-30
Just use the for-loops, they'll be the fastest by far. If you want to disguise it, write a function that takes L and M and returns l and m.
cellfun and arrayfun are slow and converting between cells and numeric types is slow. The above with preallocation will be pretty quick.
Matt Kindig
2013-4-30
It's kind of hack-y, but it gives the same output as your original posting:
n=4;
l = cell2mat(arrayfun(@(x) x*ones(1,2*x+1), 0:n, 'uni', false));
m= cell2mat( arrayfun(@(x) (-x:1:x), 0:n, 'uni', false));
Keep in mind that this may very well be slower than for-loops--I haven't done any timing comparisons.
0 个评论
Matt J
2013-5-1
编辑:Matt J
2013-5-1
Here's a way to eliminate one nested loop
l=cell(1,n+1);
m=l;
for L=0:n
i=L+1;
m{i}=-L:L;
l{i}=m{i};
l{i}(:)=L;
end
l=[l{:}],
m=[m{:}],
2 个评论
Sean de Wolski
2013-5-1
I'd be surprised if this is faster due to the cell array conversions. I guess one of us will have to run a timing test.
另请参阅
类别
在 Help Center 和 File Exchange 中查找有关 Loops and Conditional Statements 的更多信息
产品
Community Treasure Hunt
Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!
Start Hunting!