I have a pretty simple text file of just numbers that looks like
0
1.57
3.14
This example has 3 numbers, but amount is fine. I'm trying to read these into a 1d array of Float 64's, so I tried the following.
function read_x_data(fname)
f=open(fname)
xarr=readdlm(f, Float64)
print(xarr)
xarr=sortperm(xarr)
end
However, I get the error that sortperm has no matching method sortperm(::Array{Float64, 2}). I don't understand why this is happening- how can I read my data into a 1d array instead? I saw a similar question at Reading line by line in Julia, but I believe that using push n times like that is very inefficient, right? Any help with my problem or suggestions are much appreciated. Thanks!
To answer your immediate question: vec will reshape any array into a 1d vector.
sortperm returns the permutation but not the original data; hence your example, even if you added vec(xarr), would throw away the data. You probably want sort.
Finally, in Julia push! is not inefficient. You may be expecting it to be inefficient from experience with another language (Matlab?), but in Julia you can efficiently grow 1d arrays.
If your intention is to sort the data, this might work for you.
read_x_data(fname) = sort!(vec(readdlm(fname,Float64)))
Related
I have a 2D array, and have computed necessary updates along a given dimension of it using a 1D array (said updates can't be computed in place as earlier calculations would override values needed in later calculations). I thus want to copy the updates into my 2D array. The most obvious way to do this would, at first glance, appear to be to use Array slicing and Array.blit.
I have tried the approach of extracting the relevant dimension using array slicing, and then blitting across to that, but that doesn't update the values inside the 2D array. I think what is happening is that a new, separate, 1D array is being created when I make the slice, and the values are being blitted into that new array, which of course is dropped a moment later when it goes back out of scope.
I suppose you could say that I was expecting the slicing to return a view into the 2D array which would work for the blit function call, but instead the slicing actually returns a new array with the values copied into it (which, thinking about it, is what slicing does otherwise, I believe).
Currently I am using a workaround whereby I create a 2D array, where one of the dimensions is only 1 element wide (thus effectively re-creating a 1D array), and then using Array2D.blit. I would prefer to do it directly though, both because I find this ugly, and moreover because it would be quite useful elsewhere in my program where I can't just declare a 1D array as 2D.
My first approach:
let srcArray = Array.zeroCreate srcArrayLength
... // do relevant computation
srcArray.[index] <- result
... // finish computation
Array.blit srcArray 0 destArray.[index, *] 0 srcArrayLength
My current approach:
let srcArray = Array2D.zeroCreate 1 srcArrayLength
... // do relevant computation
srcArray.[0,index] <- result
... // finish computation
Array2D.blit srcArray 0 0 destArray index 0 1 srcArrayLength
The former approach has no effect on my destination 2D array. The latter approach works where I use it, but as I said above it isn't nice, and cannot be used in another situation, where I have a jagged 2D array (i.e. 'a[][]) that I would like to blit across from.
How might I go about achieiving my aim? I thought of Span/Memory, but it wasn't clear to me if and how they could be used here. Alternatively, if you can spot a better way to do this that doesn't involve blit, I'm all-virtual-ears.
I figured out a fairly good solution to this, with the help of someone over in the F# Foundation Slack. Since nobody else has posted an answer, I'll put this one up.
Both Array.Copy (note that that is the .NET Array.Copy method, not the F#-specific Array.copy) and Buffer.BlockCopy were suggested to me. Array.Copy still complains about mismatching array types, but Buffer.BlockCopy ignores the dimensionality of the supplied array, and merely copies the specified number of bytes from one location to another. Using this and relying on the fact that 2D arrays are really stored as 1D arrays in row-major order (the same as C, I believe), it is quite possible to overwrite the last dimension of a multi-dimensional array reasonably cleanly.
I updated the code from the 'current approach' in my question to the below:
let srcArray = Array.zeroCreate srcArrayLength
... //do relevant computation
srcArray.[index] <- result
... //finish computation
Buffer.BlockCopy(srcArray, 0, destArray, firstDimIndex * lengthOfSecondDim * sizeof<'a>, lengthOfSecondDim * sizeof<'a>
Not only does it do the job in a way which I personally find a bit tidier, but it has a side-benefit in that it is noticeably faster than the second approach described in the question - I haven't yet run a benchmark to quantify the difference though.
I am learning Julia following the Wikibook, but I don't understand why the following two commands give different results:
julia> [1:2]
1-element Array{UnitRange{Int64},1}:
1:2
julia> Array[1:2]
1-element Array{Array,1}:
[1,2]
Apologies if there is an explanation I haven't seen in the Wikibook, I have looked briefly but didn't find one.
Type[a] runs convert on the elements, and there is a simple conversion between a Range to an Array (collect). So Array[1:2] converts 1:2 to an array, and then makes an array of objects like that. This is the same thing as why Float64[1;2;3] is an array of Float64.
These previous parts answer answered the wrong thing. Oops...
a:b is not an array, it's a UnitRange. Why would you create an array for A = a:b? It only takes two numbers to store it, and you can calculate A[i] basically for free for any i. Using an array would take an amount of memory which is proportional to the b-a, and thus for larger arrays would take a lot of time to allocate, whereas allocation for UnitRange is essentially free.
These kinds of types in Julia are known as lazy iterators. LinSpace is another. Another interesting set of types are the special matrix types: why use more than an array to store a Diagonal? The UniformScaling operator acts as the identity matrix while only storing one value (it's scale) to make A-kI efficient.
Since Julia has a robust type system, there is no reason to make all of these things arrays. Instead, you can make them a specialized type which will act (*, +, etc.) and index like an array, but actually aren't. This will make them take less memory and be faster. If you ever need the array, just call collect(A) or full(A).
I realized that you posted something a little more specific. The reason here is that Array[1:2] calls the getindex function for an array. This getindex function has a special dispatch on a Range so that way it "acts like it's indexed by an array" (see the discussion from earlier). So that's "special-cased", but in actuality it just has dispatches to act like an array just like it does with every other function. [A] gives an array of typeof(A) no matter what A is, so there's no magic here.
I have two numbers [739 560] and I just want to know if it appears in a huge 2D array of size 9000x2
I cannot find a simple way of checking that.
Can anyone suggest anything simple? Thanks
You can do:
find(ismember(A, r, 'rows'))
In Matlab, I have a simple structure and I would like to build an array of this structure (I know how to do this). My question: is there a way to simply insert an element to that array without having to tell the array in wich position it should be? Does something similar to the "push_back" function in c++ ,that simply puts your element at the end of the vector, exists in the Matlab language?
You can use indexing in conjunction with end
a_struct = struct('x', 1);
a_struct(end+1) = struct('x', 2); % this writes the element to the `end+1`'th-position
disp(a_struct)
Will give you:
1x2 struct array with fields:
x
Note though, that under the hood there's no preallocation whatsoever as there might be for c++ vectors etc.
So every assignment to end+1 will internally result in making a copy of the old structure with one additional element.
See e.g. http://blogs.mathworks.com/loren/2008/02/01/structure-initialization/#7 for comments on this.
It sounds like you want to iteratively extend the array (vector). This is very inefficient in MATLAB as it will lead to a large number of reallocations as the vector grows.
In MATLAB, it is better to allocate the vector in advance (of the correct size) and index it directly, or use arrayfun to construct the array.
This is exactly the same issue as in c++'s std::vector, where it is much better to allocate once and then use std::back_inserter compared to push_back().
I'm testing an arbitrarily-large, arbitrarily-dimensioned array of logicals, and I'd like to find out if any one or more of them are true. any() only works on a single dimension at a time, as does sum(). I know that I could test the number of dimensions and repeat any() until I get a single answer, but I'd like a quicker, and frankly, more-elegant, approach.
Ideas?
I'm running 2009a (R17, in the old parlance, I think).
If your data is in a matrix A, try this:
anyAreTrue = any(A(:));
EDIT: To explain a bit more for anyone not familiar with the syntax, A(:) uses the colon operator to take the entire contents of the array A, no matter what the dimensions, and reshape them into a single column vector (of size numel(A)-by-1). Only one call to ANY is needed to operate on the resulting column vector.
As pointed out, the correct solution is to reshape the result into a vector. Then any will give the desired result. Thus,
any(A(:))
gives the global result, true if any of numel(A) elements were true. You could also have used
any(reshape(A,[],1))
which uses the reshape operator explicitly. If you don't wish to do the extra step of converting your matrices into vectors to apply any, then another approach is to write a function of your own. For example, here is a function that would do it for you:
======================
function result = myany(A)
% determines if any element at all in A was non-zero
result = any(A(:));
======================
Save this as an m-file on your search path. The beauty of MATLAB (true for any programming language) is it is fully extensible. If there is some capability that you wish it had, just write a little idiom that does it. If you do this often enough, you will have customized the environment to fit your needs.