comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: A case where FOR loops are unavoidable?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: A case where FOR loops are unavoidable? [message #51575 is a reply to message #51573] Mon, 27 November 2006 14:44 Go to previous message
JD Smith is currently offline  JD Smith
Messages: 850
Registered: December 1999
Senior Member
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:19:16 -0800, gknoke wrote:

> Hi all, I'm trying to setup an array for the computation of a rather
> tricky multidimensional function, but I'm seeing no way around using
> FOR loops in its creation. I've been trying to figure out an
> appropriate vector solution, but so far I'm drawing a blank.
>
> The equation goes as follows:
>
> f(x, b1, b2, p) = alog((1/b1)*(1-p)*exp(-x/b1) + (1/b2)*p*exp(-x/b2))
>
> Here x is a vector roughly of length 2^20, b1 and b2 are roughly
> 100-1000 elements, and p is roughly 10-50 elements. I realize that
> this is a larger array than is likely to fit in memory, but what I'm
> really after is the sum of this function in the x dimension, i.e. the
> final output should be something like:
>
> f_out(b1,b2,p) = total(f(x,b1,b2,p), 1)
>
> My approach to this is to loop over b1, b2, and p to take advantage of
> being able to use the total function to keep the array size manageable,
> like so:
>
> for k=1,np
> for i=1,nb1
> for j=1,nb2
> f_out(i,j,k) = total(f(x, b1[i], b2[j], p[k]), 1)
> etc. etc.
>
> This works, but I'm wondering if there are any better approaches?

You could vectorize the whole thing by making an nx x nb1 x nb2 x np
array and totaling in the correct dimension, but a) it won't fit in
memory so it will page to disk, and b) this looping method is probably
already about as fast as it gets (other than redesigning your
algorithm). If the contents of the inner loop take much longer to
execute than the looping penalty, removing loops doesn't help much if
at all, and in many cases as mentioned can get you into trouble with
memory. The looping penalty isn't huge, typically around .1 to .5
microseconds, but that can be very noticeable where inner loop
contents also take on the order of a microsecond. It's 10-100x longer
than the overhead of a tight loop in C.

JD
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: A case where FOR loops are unavoidable?
Next Topic: Error: Array has a corrupted descriptor

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat Oct 11 03:55:33 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.48105 seconds