[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Setting Negatives to Zero
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg82892] Re: Setting Negatives to Zero
*From*: Jean-Marc Gulliet <jeanmarc.gulliet at gmail.com>
*Date*: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 03:34:46 -0500 (EST)
*Organization*: The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
*References*: <fg6qha$dj0$1@smc.vnet.net> <fg9nla$lc5$1@smc.vnet.net>
Jean-Marc Gulliet wrote:
> Kevin J. McCann wrote:
>
>> I have a very large data set (64000 x 583) in which negative values
>> indicate "no data", unfortunately these negatives are not all the same.
>> I would like to efficiently set all these negatives to zero. I know that
>> I will likely be embarrassed when I see how to do it, but I can't seem
>> to remember or figure it out. I should emphasize that because of the
>> size of the data set, this needs to be done efficiently. Another
>> programming language does it as follows:
>>
>> x(x < 0) = 0;
>
> Here is a couple of solutions. They works fine but speaking about
> efficiency they are about 70 times *slower* than the vectorization you
> used with the other product.
>
> First, we create a small set of data to show the principle.
>
> data = RandomReal[{-10, 100}, {6, 4}]
>
> {{90.6031, 16.644, 15.2568, 88.4432}, {95.3404, -0.391179, 22.6264,
> 41.0332}, {18.7866, 90.8717, 48.073, 59.3251}, {24.2224, 21.1771,
> 91.7082, 50.719}, {96.9408, 27.4581, 56.9265, 2.22925}, {31.6366,
> 0.266302, 68.7124, 7.80917}}
>
> Then we use a replacement rule,
>
> data /. x_ /; x < 0 -> 0.
>
> {{90.6031, 16.644, 15.2568, 88.4432}, {95.3404, 0., 22.6264,
> 41.0332}, {18.7866, 90.8717, 48.073, 59.3251}, {24.2224, 21.1771,
> 91.7082, 50.719}, {96.9408, 27.4581, 56.9265, 2.22925}, {31.6366,
> 0.266302, 68.7124, 7.80917}}
>
> We can also do it we *Cases*,
>
> Cases[data, x_ /; x < 0 -> 0., {-1}]
>
> {0.}
>
> Now we test both method on a matrix of doubles of the size you
> specified, and check the time spent in seconds.
>
> data = RandomReal[{-10, 100}, {64000, 583}];
> Timing[data /. x_ /; x < 0 -> 0.;][[1]]
> Timing[Cases[data, x_ /; x < 0 -> 0., {-1}];][[1]]
>
> 62.046
>
> 49.797
>
> In comparison, a similar replacement on a similar matrix done with the
> other product takes less than a second.
>
> >> x = -10 + (100 - (-10)).*rand(64000,583);
> >> tic; x(x < 0) = 0; toc
> Elapsed time is 0.867847 seconds.
> >> whos x
> Name Size Bytes Class Attributes
>
> x 64000x583 298496000 double
>
> I am confident that we can improve the performances for Mathematica; but
> I draw a blank right now (though I suspect something is going on with
> the packed array technology used by Mathematica).
Thanks to Carl Woll's clipping method, Mathematica is now faster than
the other product.
In[2]:= x =.
Timing[x = RandomReal[{-10, 100}, {64000, 583}];][[1]]
Timing[x = Clip[x, {0, \[Infinity]}];][[1]]
Out[3]= 2.031
Out[4]= 0.656
>> tic; x = -10 + (100 - (-10)).*rand(64000,583); toc
Elapsed time is 2.225936 seconds.
>> tic; x(x < 0) = 0; toc
Elapsed time is 0.897022 seconds.
(Tested on Windows with the latest version of both products as of today.)
--
Jean-Marc
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: get help info into my program**
Next by Date:
**Re: FindRoot and Bose-Einstein distribution**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Setting Negatives to Zero**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Re: Setting Negatives to Zero**
| |