Re: Compiled function slowdown

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg86715] Re: Compiled function slowdown*From*: Albert Retey <awnl at arcor.net>*Date*: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:25:03 -0500 (EST)*References*: <fro384$i6b$1@smc.vnet.net>

Hi, > In a program I'm currently working on, I need to loop > through a function ~100,000 times. I thought I'd try compiling it to > save on time. However, it takes more than 10 times longer to run than > the uncompiled (module) version. Are there any general guidelines as > to when a compiled function will be slower than its uncompiled > counterpart in Mathematica (such as with the use of many conditional > statements)? When compiled functions are slower than regular code to my experience the reason is almost always the fact that mathematica has to jump out of the compiled code to execute things it can't do within the compiled code. Usually these are complicated subroutines which eventually perform symbolic calculations. It is easy to see whether your code could be compiled completely by looking at the compiled code, in version six this is just the -3rd argument of the CompiledFunction-Object: In[267]:= fc=Compile[{x,_Real},Sin[x]] Out[267]= CompiledFunction[{x,Blank$3204297},Sin[x],-CompiledCode-] In[268]:= fc[[-3]] Out[268]= {{1,5},{93,1,3,0,0,3,0,2},{2}} if this is containing numbers only, you can be reasonably sure the code will be very fast. If not, it depends, but chances are big that the code will be slow. Unfortunately, AFAIK, Compile can't handle nested compiled functions which makes it very uncomfortable to handle more complicated code. Here you can see that there are callbacks to the kernel for the evaluation of a compiled function: In[269]:= gc=Compile[{x,_Real},Exp[fc[x]]] Out[269]= CompiledFunction[{x,Blank$3204301},\[ExponentialE]^fc[x],-CompiledCode-] In[270]:= gc[[-3]] Out[270]= {{1,5},{54,Function[{x,Blank$3204301},fc[x]],3,0,0,3,0,1,3,0,2},{93,34,3,0,2,3,0,3},{2}} > I've included my function below (sorry if it's a mess; > e1, e2 and fComp are very simple compiled functions), though a general > response to the above question would be just fine. Thanks! this will also happen with your calls to e1, e2 and fComp and the first candidates for the slowdown of your code. Unfortunately the only solution I know is to do "function inlining by hand" :-). This is for many cases not or hardly possible and for the others a mess and only feasible since you can handle the code symbolically within mathematica. I really hope someone proofs me wrong on this and I can learn how to handle this situation better, but for now a nestable compile would be high on my priority list for new features and make Compile much more useful... hth, albert