Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

glm.min and glm.max benchmark slower than python 3.11 min and max operating over glm.array[glm.c_float] #211

Open
cspotcode opened this issue Feb 24, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #213
Open

glm.min and glm.max benchmark slower than python 3.11 min and max operating over glm.array[glm.c_float] #211

cspotcode opened this issue Feb 24, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #213
Labels
enhancement

Comments

@cspotcode
Copy link
Contributor

My benchmark was pretty informal, I used this hyperfine invocation:

> hyperfine --runs 5 --parameter-list impl pyglm,python 'python .\test-{impl}-min-max.py'

The two python scripts were this file, but with one of the two benchmarks uncommented in each:

import glm
from glm import min as glm_min

a = glm.array([glm.vec2(x, x + 1) for x in range(0, 10000, 2)])
a_x, a_y = a.split_components()

for i in range(99999):
    # PyGLM
    # glm_min(a_x)
    # glm_min(a_y)

    # Python
    min(a_x)
    min(a_y)

I got this output:

Benchmark 1: python .\test-pyglm-min-max.py
  Time (mean ± σ):     16.518 s ±  0.171 s    [User: 9.596 s, System: 0.023 s]
  Range (min … max):   16.370 s … 16.798 s    5 runs

Benchmark 2: python .\test-python-min-max.py
  Time (mean ± σ):     12.781 s ±  0.093 s    [User: 7.483 s, System: 0.023 s]
  Range (min … max):   12.705 s … 12.936 s    5 runs

Summary
  'python .\test-python-min-max.py' ran
    1.29 ± 0.02 times faster than 'python .\test-pyglm-min-max.py'

My first attempt used very small arrays. But I increased the array size a lot, and python min and max are still faster. I looked at #147, thinking maybe that slowed down min and max? But I'm not sure.
@Zuzu-Typ
Copy link
Owner

The reason why min and max are slow in this context is because both operations currently only support list, tuple and other iterable types. Therefore, glm.array is simply interpreted as an iterable. Because there is a slight overhead in the glm.min function compared to the builtin min function (or max-function respectively), the builtin function is faster.

To change this, a dedicated routine for arrays would be required.
I think it's a very good idea to have one.

@cspotcode
Copy link
Contributor Author

cspotcode commented Feb 26, 2023 via email

@cspotcode cspotcode linked a pull request Feb 28, 2023 that will close this issue
Draft
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

WIP implement #211: native min and max over arrays via glm::min / glm::max cspotcode/PyGLM
2 participants
@cspotcode @Zuzu-Typ