Ryan Nelson rnelsonchem at gmail.com
Sun Sep 14 22:53:13 EDT 2014

```I think I figured out my own question. I guess that the broadcasting
approach is generating a very large 2D array in memory, which takes a bit
of extra time. I gathered this from reading the last example on the
following site:
I tried this again with a much smaller "xs" array (~100 points) and the
Thanks

Ryan

Note: The link to the Scipy wiki page above is broken at the bottom of
Numpy's broadcasting page, otherwise I would have seen that earlier. Sorry
for the noise.

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Ryan Nelson <rnelsonchem at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I have a question about the performance of broadcasting versus Python for
> loops. I have the following sample code that approximates some simulation
> I'd like to do:
>
> ## Test Code ##
>
> import numpy as np
>
>
> def lorentz(x, pos, inten, hwhm):
>
>     return inten*( hwhm**2 / ( (x - pos)**2 + hwhm**2 ) )
>
>
> poss = np.random.rand(100)
>
> intens = np.random.rand(100)
>
> xs = np.linspace(0,10,10000)
>
>
> def first_try():
>
>     sim_inten = np.zeros(xs.shape)
>
>     for freq, inten in zip(poss, intens):
>
>         sim_inten += lorentz(xs, freq, inten, 5.0)
>
>     return sim_inten
>
>
> def second_try():
>
>     sim_inten2 = lorentz(xs.reshape((-1,1)), poss, intens, 5.0)
>
>     sim_inten2 = sim_inten2.sum(axis=1)
>
>     return sim_inten2
>
>
> print np.array_equal(first_try(), second_try())
>
>
> ## End Test ##
>
>
> Running this script prints "True" for the final equality test. However,
> IPython's %timeit magic, gives ~10 ms for first_try and ~30 ms for
> second_try. I tried this on Windows 7 (Anaconda Python) and on a Linux
> machine both with Python 2.7 and Numpy 1.8.2.
>
>
> I understand in principle why broadcasting should be faster than Python
> loops, but I'm wondering why I'm getting worse results with the pure Numpy
> function. Is there some general rules for when broadcasting might give
> worse performance than a Python loop?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...