-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Chunking implemented for Issue #67 for improved memory management #105
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we don't need to do that. The time it takes to allocate these is so small that it doesn't really matter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just saw your comment re seasoned assembly programmer.
The reason I don't want to optimize here is the cost of maintenance vs speed.
Reallocating is clearly slower, but I'm pretty sure it's imperceptibly slower, and the code using pre-allocation is quite a bit more complex and more likely to introduce bugs, and harder to modify.
I imagine the python community makes a different trade-off between readability and speed here than the assembly community ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the feedback!
Sorry the explanation wasn't very clear. It is not about the pre-allocation of the Y_result versus the allocation of the loop_times individual result chunks; I agree this is not making a difference at all.
It is about concatenation of the incremental growing result set and copying the data as each loop iteration using something like:
y_result = np.stack((y_result, y_chunk))
This allocates the memory and copies the data each loop iteration. For larger data sets for which I tried it is an order of magnitude slower 10 seconds vs 100 seconds. I thought this would justify this.
I got the pre-allocation actually from a Python recipe - in assembler it would look very different ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would not grow in each iteration but only call stack once in the end. That should reduce the memory allocated and I would be surprised if that impacted the runtime that much - though I could be wrong of course.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll write the version without the pre-allocation and will test it. ... let you know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Below is the performance evaluation of the current HEAD and the two alternatives.
In summary:
There is a significant performance advantage in terms of memory and execution time compared to the current master.
The advantage for the pre-allocation is minimal / hardly measurable. Hence I submit a new PR for the change code, which is slightly more readable. Please close this one.
*** Performance evaluation for:
MLPClassifier(solver='lbfgs', random_state=0, hidden_layer_sizes=[1000, 1000, 1000])
runtime is in seconds
Current HEAD:
(32bit architecture) - Out of Memory Error
Ran 3 Iterations: Average runtime: 361.9377431869507 - standard deviation: 0.84561111123 (64bit architecture) - 36 GB Memory Allocated
bug_32bit_out_of_memory (pre-allocation of result set) (This PR)
Ran 3 Iterations: Average runtime: 151.96799866358438 - standard deviation: 0.5428240156760912 (32bit architecture) - ~1 GB Memory Allocated
Ran 3 Iterations: Average runtime: 103.92718044916789 - standard deviation: 0.3448667233842946 (64bit architecture) - ~1 GB Memory Allocated
bug_32bit_out_of_memory_v2 (accumulation of result set)
Ran 3 Iterations: Average runtime: 152.8699369430542 - standard deviation: 0.6673264039615153 (32bit architecture) - ~1 GB Memory Allocated
Ran 3 Iterations: Average runtime: 104.28479194641113 - standard deviation: 0.430773539134181 (64bit architecture) - ~1 GB Memory Allocated