Re: "set" data structure in Mathematica? (speeding up graph traversal function)

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg117599] Re: "set" data structure in Mathematica? (speeding up graph traversal function)*From*: Szabolcs HorvÃt <szhorvat at gmail.com>*Date*: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:28:12 -0500 (EST)

Thank you for reading the lengthy post and replying, Bobby! Essentially what you are doing is replacing several calls to MemberQ by a single call to Complement. This indeed works well! Another change was the use of Cases in place of ReplaceList, which is mostly responsible for the great difference in timing you get. However, using Dispatch[graph] instead of just graph in ReplaceList appears to be faster than Cases. This can be combined with your idea to use Complement to get another speedup. Cheers, Szabolcs 2011/3/22 DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>: > Here's an improvement, I think. > > For the test graph you listed below, I get > > Clear[next, path, p, listPath] > nodes == Union@Flatten[graph /. Rule -> List]; > next[i_Integer] :== next[i] == Cases[graph, Rule[i, j_] :> j] > path[i_Integer] :== path@p@i > path[p[a___, last_]] :== > =C2 Module[{c == Complement[next@last, {a, last}]}, > =C2 If[c ==== {}, > =C2 p[a, last], > =C2 Flatten[path@p[a, last, #] & /@ c] > =C2 ] > =C2 ] > (paths == (path /@ nodes); Length@Flatten[pathways]) // Timing > > {1.73881, 405496} > > Omitting Flatten and using p -> List can get a structure like yours > (mostly): > > Clear[next, path, p, listPath] > nodes == Union@Flatten[graph /. Rule -> List]; > next[i_Integer] :== next[i] == Cases[graph, Rule[i, j_] :> j] > path[i_Integer] :== path@p@i > path[p[a___, last_]] :== > =C2 Module[{c == Complement[next@last, {a, last}]}, > =C2 If[c ==== {}, > =C2 p[a, last], > =C2 Flatten[path@p[a, last, #] & /@ c] > =C2 ] > =C2 ] > ((paths == Flatten[path /@ nodes] /. p -> List) // Length) // Timing > > {1.85056, 47165} > > Compare the above with > > Clear[traverse] > traverse[path_][node_] :== > =C2 With[{l == ReplaceList[node, graph], p == Append[path, node]}, > =C2 If[l ====== {}, {p}, > =C2 If[MemberQ[path, node], {}, Join @@ (traverse[p] /@ l)]]] > pathways == traverse[{}] /@ nodes; // Timing > > {8.09828, Null} > > paths ==== Cases[pathways, {__Integer}, Infinity] > > True > > Bobby > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:06:19 -0500, Szabolcs Horv=C3=A1t <szhorvat at gmail.= com> > wrote: > >> Dear MathGroup, >> >> I am trying to speed up a function. >> >> I'm looking for an efficient set-like data structure, to be used as >> follows: >> >> I have a recursive function f, which works like this (omitting the >> details): >> >> f[set_][value_] :== >> =C2 if value in set then >> =C2 =C2 return nothing >> =C2 otherwise >> =C2 =C2 newSet == insert value into set >> =C2 =C2 return f[newSet] /@ (list of computed values) >> >> In other words, the function calculates a list of values, then calls >> itself recursively with each of them. =C2 These values are collected i= nto a >> set during the recursive calls, and one of the stopping conditions is >> that a value gets repeated. >> >> Note: of course there's another stopping condition as well, otherwise >> the function wouldn't return anything, but that is irrelevant here. >> >> Also note: each branch of the recursion will have its own collection >> (set) of values. >> >> The trivial solution would be just using a List of values, inserting new >> values with Append, and testing whether they're already in the list with >> MemberQ. =C2 I found that the function spends most of its time in Memb= erQ, >> so I am looking for a more efficient solution than a plain list that >> needs to be iterated over to find elements in it. >> >> I tried using newSet == Union[set, {value}] instead of append, and >> testing whether Length[newSet] ====== Length[set], but this turned out t= o >> be even slower. >> >> I wonder if there's a better solution. >> >> One way would be using "function definitions", i.e. "inserting" 'value' >> into 'set' as set[value] == True, and testing membership simply as >> TrueQ[set[value]], but this object can't easily be passed around in a >> recursive function because it is essentially a global variable. =C2 No= te >> again that the recursion has several branches as the function is mapped >> over a whole list of values. >> >> Does anyone have an idea how to solve this problem? >> >> =C2 -- Szabolcs >> >> P.S. =C2 The problem I'm trying to solve is to find (actually just cou= nt) >> ALL acyclic paths in a directed graph, starting from a given node. >> Starting from a node, I descend along the connections until there's no >> way to go, or until I encounter a node that I have already visited. >> >> Perhaps it's better if I post the function ... >> >> traverse[graph_][path_][node_] :== >> =C2 With[ >> =C2 {l == ReplaceList[node, graph], >> =C2 =C2 p == Append[path, node]}, >> =C2 If[l ====== {}, >> =C2 =C2 {p}, >> =C2 =C2 If[ >> =C2 =C2 MemberQ[path, node], >> =C2 =C2 {}, >> =C2 =C2 Join @@ (traverse[graph][p] /@ l) >> =C2 =C2 ] >> =C2 =C2 ] >> =C2 ] >> >> graph is a list of rules representing a simple directed graph, path is >> the list of already visited nodes (initially {}), node is the starting >> node. =C2 It's generally a good idea to pass the graph as a dispatch t= able >> (Dispatch[]), but then MemberQ[] takes even longer to evaluate than >> ReplaceList[]. >> >> If there are cycles in the graph, there will be a large number of paths, >> and the function will be slow. >> >> P.P.S >> >> Here's a small graph with some loops to test with: >> >> {1 -> 2, 3 -> 4, 5 -> 1, 5 -> 2, 6 -> 2, 6 -> 5, 7 -> 2, 7 -> 6, >> =C2 8 -> 1, 8 -> 2, 8 -> 5, 8 -> 6, 9 -> 2, 9 -> 5, 9 -> 6, 9 -> 7, >> =C2 10 -> 2, 10 -> 6, 10 -> 7, 11 -> 6, 11 -> 7, 12 -> 6, 12 -> 7, >> =C2 13 -> 6, 13 -> 7, 14 -> 2, 14 -> 5, 14 -> 6, 14 -> 7, 15 -> 3, >> =C2 15 -> 6, 15 -> 7, 15 -> 8, 16 -> 3, 16 -> 6, 16 -> 7, 16 -> 13, >> =C2 17 -> 3, 17 -> 6, 17 -> 7, 17 -> 9, 17 -> 11, 17 -> 13, 18 -> 3, >> =C2 18 -> 6, 18 -> 7, 18 -> 9, 18 -> 11, 18 -> 12, 18 -> 13, 18 -> 14, >> =C2 18 -> 15, 18 -> 19, 18 -> 20, 19 -> 6, 19 -> 7, 19 -> 9, 19 -> 10, >> =C2 19 -> 11, 19 -> 12, 19 -> 13, 19 -> 14, 19 -> 16, 19 -> 17, 19 -> = 18, >> =C2 19 -> 20, 20 -> 3, 20 -> 7, 20 -> 9, 20 -> 10, 20 -> 11, 20 -> 12= , >> =C2 20 -> 14, 20 -> 16, 20 -> 18, 20 -> 19, 21 -> 3, 21 -> 9, 21 -> 10= , >> =C2 21 -> 11, 21 -> 12, 21 -> 13, 21 -> 14, 21 -> 15, 21 -> 16, 21 -> = 17, >> =C2 21 -> 19, 21 -> 20, 22 -> 3, 22 -> 7, 22 -> 9, 22 -> 10, 22 -> 11= , >> =C2 22 -> 12, 22 -> 13, 22 -> 14, 22 -> 16, 22 -> 19, 22 -> 20, 23 -> = 3, >> =C2 23 -> 7, 23 -> 9, 23 -> 10, 23 -> 14, 23 -> 16, 23 -> 17, 23 -> 18= , >> =C2 23 -> 19, 23 -> 20, 24 -> 7, 24 -> 9, 24 -> 10, 24 -> 11, 24 -> 14= , >> =C2 24 -> 15, 24 -> 16, 24 -> 17, 24 -> 18, 24 -> 20, 25 -> 3, 25 -> 9= , >> =C2 25 -> 10, 25 -> 11, 25 -> 14, 25 -> 15, 25 -> 16, 25 -> 18, 25 -> = 19, >> =C2 25 -> 20, 26 -> 7, 26 -> 9, 26 -> 10, 26 -> 11, 26 -> 13, 26 -> 1= 4, >> =C2 26 -> 15, 26 -> 16, 26 -> 19, 26 -> 20, 27 -> 3, 27 -> 6, 27 -> 7, >> =C2 27 -> 9, 27 -> 10, 27 -> 11, 27 -> 12, 27 -> 13, 27 -> 14, 27 -> 1= 5, >> =C2 27 -> 16, 27 -> 17, 27 -> 18, 27 -> 19, 27 -> 20, 27 -> 22, 27 -> = 28, >> =C2 28 -> 3, 28 -> 9, 28 -> 10, 28 -> 11, 28 -> 12, 28 -> 13, 28 -> 1= 4, >> =C2 28 -> 15, 28 -> 16, 28 -> 17, 28 -> 18, 28 -> 19, 28 -> 20, 28 -> = 22, >> =C2 28 -> 27, 28 -> 29, 29 -> 3, 29 -> 6, 29 -> 7, 29 -> 8, 29 -> 9, >> =C2 29 -> 10, 29 -> 11, 29 -> 12, 29 -> 13, 29 -> 14, 29 -> 15, 29 -> = 16, >> =C2 29 -> 17, 29 -> 18, 29 -> 19, 29 -> 20, 29 -> 21, 29 -> 22, >> =C2 29 -> 23, 29 -> 24, 29 -> 25, 29 -> 26, 29 -> 27, 29 -> 28} >> > > > -- > DrMajorBob at yahoo.com >

**Re: Why Mathematica does not issue a warning when the calculations**

**Re: "set" data structure in Mathematica? (speeding up graph traversal function)**

**Re: "set" data structure in Mathematica? (speeding up graph traversal function)**

**Re: "set" data structure in Mathematica? (speeding up graph traversal function)**