Protip: if you are writing your own rasterization code in python, be prepared to forget about performance altogether.

Something like numba or other c-like extension will be necessary unless you are willing to leave big gobs of performance on the table; and even with pure C you will get nowhere close to the performance of super-duper optimized library code you are used to.

But before you go down that rabbit hole, its probably worth thinking about whether you can get an existing rendering framework to do what you want to do.


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Nicolas P. Rougier <Nicolas.Rougier@inria.fr> wrote:

Thanks, I'll try your solution.

Data (L) is not so big actually, it represents pixels on screen and (I) represents line position (for grids). I need to compute this quantity everytime the user zoom in or out.


Nicolas


On 22 Jun 2014, at 19:05, Eelco Hoogendoorn <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, if the spacing is truly uniform, then of course you don't really need the search, and you can do away with the extra log-n, and there is a purely linear solution:
>
> def find_closest_direct(start, end, count, A):
>     Q = (A-start)/(end-start)*count
>     mid = ((Q[1:]+Q[:-1]+1)/2).astype(np.int)
>     boundary = np.zeros(count, np.int)
>     boundary[mid] = 1
>     return np.add.accumulate(boundary)
>
> I expect this to be a bit faster, but nothing dramatic, unless your datasets are huge. It isn't really more or less elegant either, id say. Note that the output isn't 100% identical; youd need to do a little tinkering to figure out the correct/desired rounding behavior.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Nicolas P. Rougier <Nicolas.Rougier@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the answer.
> I was secretly hoping for some kind of hardly-known numpy function that would make things faster auto-magically...
>
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> On 22 Jun 2014, at 10:30, Eelco Hoogendoorn <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you could simplify some statements, but at least the algorithmic complexity is fine, and everything is vectorized, so I doubt you will get huge gains.
> >
> > You could take a look at the functions in scipy.spatial, and see how they perform for your problem parameters.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Nicolas P. Rougier <Nicolas.Rougier@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have an array L with regular spaced values between 0 and width.
> > I have a (sorted) array I with irregular spaced values between 0 and width.
> >
> > I would like to find the closest value in I for any value in L.
> >
> > Currently, I'm using the following script but I wonder if I missed an obvious (and faster) solution:
> >
> >
> > import numpy as np
> >
> > def find_closest(A, target):
> >     idx = A.searchsorted(target)
> >     idx = np.clip(idx, 1, len(A) - 1)
> >     left = A[idx - 1]
> >     right = A[idx]
> >     idx -= target - left < right - target
> >     return idx
> >
> > n, width = 256, 100.0
> >
> > # 10 random sorted values in [0,width]
> > I = np.sort(np.random.randint(0,width,10))
> >
> > # n regular spaced values in [0,width]
> > L = np.linspace(0, width, n)
> >
> > print I[find_closest(I,L)]
> >
> >
> >
> > Nicolas
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion