In some specific case, preallocation is slower than doing nothing.

Question

Sangmin Lee 2021-3-7

0
链接

此问题的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/765516-in-some-specific-case-preallocation-is-slower-than-doing-nothing

评论： Sangmin Lee 2021-3-7

采纳的回答： Stephen23

在 MATLAB Online 中打开

Hi,

Please see the below screenshot. I think in this specific case, preallocation does not help.

for k=1:5
    clearvars
    sig_smpl = 10001;
    num_mode = 3;
    tic
    for i=1:100
        eta = -0.5 + rand(sig_smpl,1);  % -0.5 ~ 0.5 random generation from uniform distribution
        h = -0.5 + rand(sig_smpl,1);
        
        for j=1:num_mode
            G_U(:, j) = conv(eta, h);
            G_L(:, j) = conv(h, eta);
        end
    end
    toc
end

%%

for k=1:5
    clearvars
    sig_smpl = 10001;
    num_mode = 3;
    G_U = zeros(sig_smpl * 2 - 1, num_mode);
    G_L = zeros(sig_smpl * 2 - 1, num_mode);
    
    tic
    for i=1:100
        eta = -0.5 + rand(sig_smpl,1);  % -0.5 ~ 0.5 random generation from uniform distribution
        h = -0.5 + rand(sig_smpl,1);
        
        for j=1:num_mode
            G_U(:, j) = conv(eta, h);
            G_L(:, j) = conv(h, eta);
        end
    end
    toc
end

What did I wrong?

p.s. Is there any way copy and past of my live script to here with results ('Output')?

2 个评论
显示无隐藏无

Walter Roberson 2021-3-7

Don't use clearvars in a loop: it interferes with optimization.

Sangmin Lee 2021-3-7

@Walter Roberson Thanks for the advice!

请先登录，再进行评论。

请先登录，再回答此问题。

Answer 1

Stephen23 2021-3-7

1
链接

此回答的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/765516-in-some-specific-case-preallocation-is-slower-than-doing-nothing#answer_641366

编辑：Stephen23 2021-3-7

"What did I wrong?"

Your timing comparison is 99% meaningless.

Your are comparing the times of 100 loop iterations (the i loop), but only on the first loop iteration does the array get expanded by the j loop, after that the G_U and G_L matrices already exist and their content will simply get updated. So for the other 99 loop iterations that you are timing (of the i loop) there is practically no difference between your two versions.

You will not get a meaningful comparison of that first loop (the only one where preallocation makes any difference), when its timing is merged in with 99 other loop iterations (where both versions are effectively preallocated, thus no meaningful difference in your comparison). In the end you are basically measuring OS noise of all 100 iterations, because for your small arrays that swamps everything else.

The i loop seems to achieve nothing anyway. Did you add it as an attempt to compare the timing?

For that matter, the j loop does not seem to serve any purpose either.