Is there any way to "vector" assign an array of struct.
Currently I can
edges(1000000) = struct('weight',1.0); //This really does not assign the value, I checked on 2009A.
for i=1:1000000; edges(i).weight=1.0; end;
But that is slow, I want to do something more like
edges(:).weight=[rand(1000000,1)]; //with or without the square brackets.
Any ideas/suggestions to vectorize this assignment, so that it will be faster.
Thanks in advance.
This is much faster than deal or a loop (at least on my system):
N=10000;
edge(N) = struct('weight',1.0); % initialize the array
values = rand(1,N); % set the values as a vector
W = mat2cell(values, 1,ones(1,N)); % convert values to a cell
[edge(:).weight] = W{:};
Using curly braces on the right gives a comma separated value list of all the values in W (i.e. N outputs) and using square braces on the right assigns those N outputs to the N values in edge(:).weight.
You can try using the Matlab function deal, but I found it requires to tweak the input a little (using this question: In Matlab, for a multiple input function, how to use a single input as multiple inputs?), maybe there is something simpler.
n=100000;
edges(n)=struct('weight',1.0);
m=mat2cell(rand(n,1),ones(n,1),1);
[edges(:).weight]=deal(m{:});
Also I found that this is not nearly as fast as the for loop on my computer (~0.35s for deal versus ~0.05s for the loop) presumably because of the call to mat2cell. The difference in speed is reduced if you use this more than once but it stays in favor of the for loop.
You could simply write:
edges = struct('weight', num2cell(rand(1000000,1)));
Is there something requiring you to particularly use a struct in this way?
Consider replacing your array of structs with simply a separate array for each member of the struct.
weights = rand(1, 1000);
If you have a struct member which is an array, you can make an extra dimension:
matrices = rand(3, 3, 1000);
If you just want to keep things neat, you could put these arrays into a struct:
edges.weights = weights;
edges.matrices = matrices;
But if you need to keep an array of structs, I think you can do
[edges.weight] = rand(1, 1000);
The reason that the structs in your example don't get initialized properly is that the syntax you're using only addresses the very last element in the struct array. For a nonexistent array, the rest of them get implicitly filled in with structs that have the default value [] in all their fields.
To make this behavior clear, try doing a short array with clear edges; edges(1:3) = struct('weight',1.0) and looking at each of edges(1), edges(2), and edges(3). The edges(3) element has 1.0 in its weight like you want; the others have [].
The syntax for efficiently initializing an array of structs is one of these.
% Using repmat and full assignment
edges = repmat(struct('weight', 1.0), [1 1000]);
% Using indexing
% NOTE: Only correct if variable is uninitialized!!!
edges(1:1000) = struct('weight', 1.0); % QUESTIONABLE
Note the 1:1000 instead of just 1000 when indexing in to the uninitialized edges array.
There's a problem with the edges(1:1000) form: if edges is already initialized, this syntax will just update the values of selected elements. If edges has more than 1000 elements, the others will be left unchanged, and your code will be buggy. Or if edges is a different type, you could get an error or weird behavior depending on its existing datatype. To be safe, you need to do clear edges before initializing using the indexing syntax. So it's better to just do full assignment with the repmat form.
BUT: Regardless of how you initialize it, an array-of-structs like this is always going to be inherently slow to work with for larger data sets. You can't do real "vectorized" operations on it because your primitive arrays are all broken up in to separate mxArrays inside each struct element. That includes the field assignment in your question – it is not possible to vectorize that. Instead, you should switch a struct-of-arrays like Brian L's answer suggests.
You can use a reverse struct and then do all operations without any errors
like this
x.E(1)=1;
x.E(2)=3;
x.E(2)=8;
x.E(3)=5;
and then the operation like the following
x.E
ans =
3 8 5
or like this
x.E(1:2)=2
x =
E: [2 2 5]
or maybe this
x.E(1:3)=[2,3,4]*5
x =
E: [10 15 20]
It is really faster than for_loop and you do not need other big functions to slow your program.
Related
Working in MATLAB R2017a. I'm trying to optimise a piece of code I'm working on. It uses arrays to store field values on a grid.
In order to create a specific function in a field array I originally used the straight forward method of two for loops iterating over all the array elements. But i know for loops are slow so since then I came back and tried my best to remove them. However I could only manage to remove one of the loops; leaving me with this:
for n = 1:1:K
%%% define initial pertubation
t=n*dt;
% create array for source Ez field.
xtemps = (1:Ng)*dX;
for k = 1:Ng
ztemp = k*dX;
Ez0(k,:) = THzamp * (1/(1+exp(-(t-stepuppos)))) * exp(-((xtemps-...
THzstartx).^2)./(bx^2)) .* (t-((ztemp-THzstartz)/vg))*exp(-((t-((ztemp-...
THzstartz)/vg))^2)/(bt^2));
end
The important bit here is the last 5 lines, but I figured the stuff before might be important for context. I've removed the for loop looping over the x coordinates. I want to vectorize the z/k for loop but I can't figure out how to distinguish between the dimensions with the array oporators.
Edit: THzamp, stepuppos, bx, bt, THzstartz, THzstartx are all just scalars, they control the function (Ez0) I'm trying to create. dX and t are also just scalars. Ez0 is a square array of size Ng.
What I want to achieve is to remove the for loop that loops over k, so that that the values of ztemp are defined in a vector (like xtemps already is), rather than individually in the loop. However, I don't know how I'd write the definition of Ez0 in that case.
First time posting here, if I'm doing it wrong let me know. If you need more info just ask.
It isn't clear if n is used in the other headers and as stated in the comments your sizes aren't properly defined so you'll have to ensure the sizes are correct.
However, you can give this vectorize code a try.
n = 1:K
%%% define initial pertubation
t=n*dt;
% create array for source Ez field.
xtemps = (1:Ng)*dX;
for k = 1:Ng
ztemp = k*dX;
Ez0(k,:) = THzamp .* (1./(1+exp(-(t-stepuppos)))) .* exp(-((xtemps-...
THzstartx).^2)./(bx^2)) .* (t-((ztemp-THzstartz)/vg)).*exp(-((t-((ztemp-...
THzstartz)/vg)).^2)/(bt.^2));
end
So now t has the size K you'll need to ensure stepupposand (ztemp-THzstartz)/vg) have the same size K. Also you can take a look at vectors vs array operators here.
I've been learning Julia by trying to write a simple rigid body simulation, but I'm still somewhat confused about the assignment and mutating of variables.
I'm storing the points making up the shape of a body into an array of arrays where one vector holds the x,y,z coordinates of a point. For plotting the body with PyPlot the points are first transformed from local coordinates into world coordinates and then assigned to three arrays which hold the x, y, and z coordinates for the points respectively. I would like to have the three arrays only reference the array of arrays values instead of having copies of the values.
The relevant part of my code looks like this
type Rigidbody
n::Integer
k::Integer
bodyXYZ::Array{Array{Float64,1},2}
worldXYZ::Array{Array{Float64,1},2}
worldX::Array{Float64,2}
worldY::Array{Float64,2}
worldZ::Array{Float64,2}
Rotmat::Array{Float64,2}
x::Array{Float64,1}
end
# body.worldXYZ[1,1] = [x; y; z]
# and body.worldX[1,1] should be body.worldXYZ[1,1][1]
function body_to_world(body::Rigidbody)
for j in range(1, body.k)
for i in range(1, body.n)
body.worldXYZ[i,j] = body.x + body.Rotmat*body.bodyXYZ[i,j]
body.worldX[i,j] = body.worldXYZ[i,j][1]
body.worldY[i,j] = body.worldXYZ[i,j][2]
body.worldZ[i,j] = body.worldXYZ[i,j][3]
end
end
return nothing
end
After calling the body_to_world() and checking the elements with === they evaluate to true but if I then for example set
body.worldXYZ[1,1][1] = 99.999
the change is not reflected in body.worldX. The problem is probably something trivial but as can be seen from my code, I am a beginner and could use some help.
body.worldX[i,j] = body.worldXYZ[i,j][1]
You're setting a number to a number here. Numbers are not mutable, so body.worldX[i,j] won't refer back to body.worldXYZ[i,j][1]. What you're thinking of is that the value of an array will be a reference, but numbers don't have references, just the value themselves.
However, I would venture to say that if you're doing something like that, you're going about the problem wrong. You should probably be using types somewhere. Remember, types in Julia give good performance, so don't be afraid of them (and immutable types should be almost perfectly optimized after carneval's PR, so there's really no need to be afraid). Instead, I would make world::Array{Point,2} where
immutable Point{T}
x::T
y::T
z::T
end
Then you can get body.world[i,j].x for the x coordinate, etc. And then for free you can use map((i,j)->Ref(body.world[i,j].x),size(body.world)...) to get an array of references to the x's.
Or, you should be adding dispatches to your type. For example
import Base: size
size(RigidBody) = (n,k)
now size(body) outputs (n,k), as though it's an array. You can complete the array interface with getindex and setindex!. This kind of adding dispatches to your type will help clean up the code immensely.
The point of indexing is mainly to get the value. In MATLAB,
for a cell array, there is content indexing ({}), and thus cell indexing (()) is only for selecting a subset from the cell array, right?
Is there anything other advanced usage for it? Like using it as
a pointer and pass it to a function?
There is a heavily simplified answer. {}-indexing returns you the content, ()-indexing creates a subcell with the indexed elements. Let's take a simple example:
>> a=x(2)
a =
[2]
>> class(a)
ans =
cell
>> b=x{2}
b =
2
>> class(b)
ans =
double
Now continue with non-scalar elements. For the ()-indexing everything behaves as expected, you receive a subcell with the elements:
>> a=x(2:3)
a =
[2] [3]
The thing really special to Matlab is using {}-indexing with non-scalar indices. It returns a Comma-Separated List with all the contents. Now what is happening here:
>> b=x{2:3}
b =
2
The Comma-Separated List behaves similar to a function with two return arguments. You want only one value, only one value is assigned. The second value is lost. You can also use this to assign multiple elements to individual lists at once:
>> [a,b]=x{2:3} %old MATLAB versions require deal here
a =
2
b =
3
Now finally to a very powerful use case of comma separated lists. Assume you have some stupid function foo which requires many input arguments. In your code you could write something like:
foo(a,b,c,d,e,f)
Or, assuming you have all parameters stored in a cell:
foo(a{1},a{2},a{3},a{4},a{5},a{6})
Alternatively you can call the function using a comma separated list. Assuming a has 6 elements, this line is fully equivalent to the previous:
foo(a{:}) %The : is a short cut for 1:end, index the first to the last element
The same technique demonstrated here for input arguments can also be used for output arguments.
Regarding your final question about pointers. Matlab does not use pointers and it has no supplement for it (except handle in oop Matlab), but Matlab is very strong in optimizing the memory usage. Especially using Copy-on-write makes it unnecessary to have pointers in most cases. You typically end up with functions like
M=myMatrixOperation(M,parameter,parameter2)
Where you input your data and return it.
Is it possible to apply the idea of array in C to MATLAB
For example, if we have
Double array[10];
and if we want to assign a value we write for example
Array[5]=2;
Is there any way to write equivalent one in MATLAB ?
I'm not sure what you mean by "Is it possible to apply the idea of array in C to MATLAB". An array is just a 1D list of numbers (or other data types). MATLAB primarily is designed to work with matrices (MATLAB is short for Matrix laborartory) and an array or vector is simply a special case of a matrix. So I guess the answer to your question is yes, if I have understood correctly.
To initialise arrays or matrices in MATLAB we use zeros or ones:
>> array = zeros(1,5)
array =
0 0 0 0 0
We can then index elements of the array in the same way as C:
>> array(3) = 3
array =
0 0 3 0 0
Note, however, that MATLAB array indexing is one based whereas C arrays are zero based.
This article describes matrix/array indexing in MATLAB.
You can define your own class, override the [] operator.
I described the mechanism in Here
Since it is a custom function, you might as well change the 1-based indexing to 0-based indexing.
Regarding the constructor, I doubt that you can do it.
Anyhow, why would you want to do it?
You will confuse all of the Matlab users, and cause havoc.
When in Rome, do as Romans do.
Yes you can. Arrays are used in C and MATLAB and they can be used for the same functions. Except, please keep in mind the array-indexing of C and MATLAB are different.
The first element of a C array has an index of zero. i.e. in X = [10 20 30 40], x[0] will return 10. But in MATLAB, this will give an error. To access the number 10, you have to use the expression x[1] in MATLAB.
There is no indexing operator []. You must use () for indexing array.
If you write
x = 1:10;
x[2]
then you'll get the following error
x[2]
|
Error: Unbalanced or unexpected parenthesis or bracket.
Thanks! I just had to cast the right side of the assignment to Term.
I have to make a dynamic array of polynomials that each have a dynamic array of terms. When giving the term a exponent and coefficient, I get an error "expected expression before '{' token". What am I doing incorrectly when assigning the values?
Also, is there an easy way of keeping the dynamic array of terms ordered by their exponent? I was just planning on looping through, printing the max value but would prefer to store them in order.
Thanks!
polynomialArray[index].polynomialTerm[0] = {exponent, coefficient}; // ISSUE HERE
change to
polynomialArray[index].polynomialTerm[0] = (Term){exponent, coefficient};
polynomialArray[index].polynomialTerm[0]->exponent = exponent;
polynomialArray[index].polynomialTerm[0]->coefficient = coefficient;
There's an efficiency problem here in your code:
if(index > (sizeof(polynomialArray)/sizeof(Polynomial)))
polynomialArray = (Polynomial*)realloc(polynomialArray, index * sizeof(Polynomial));
as polynomialArray is a pointer, I think sizeof(polynomialArray) would always be 4 or 8(64-bit system). So the above if statement will always true as long as index is greater than 0.
If this is C99, I think you need
polynomialArray[index].polynomialTerm[0] = (Term){exponent, coefficient};
You cannot attribute values like that (only during declaration).
You should assign like this:
polynomialArray[index].polynomialTerm[0].exponent = exponent;
polynomialArray[index].polynomialTerm[0].coefficient = coefficient;
About the other question, you really don't need assert here. The pointer will not be NULL if it has a value malloc allocated to it. If not, it is better to be NULL, so you can test if malloc failed.
To have it ordered, you will need to order using some sort algorithm. I think that if you are looking for an easy way, the way you are doing is fine. If it is critical to be ordered (like real time applications), than you need to rethink the approach. If not, keep it and go forward!
Take care,
Beco