Quickly creating a sparse arrayAddition of sparse array objectsManipulating sparse array elementsDevising a...

A curious equality of integrals involving the prime counting function?

Has any human ever had the choice to leave Earth permanently?

How do you funnel food off a cutting board?

Quickly creating a sparse array

How do I append a character to the end of every line in an Excel cell?

Why is it that Bernie Sanders is always called a "socialist"?

How can I get my players to come to the game session after agreeing to a date?

How should I handle players who ignore the session zero agreement?

What would be the rarity of this magic item(s)?

Consequences of lack of rigour

How to tell if a BJT is PNP or NPN by looking at the circuit?

How much mayhem could I cause as a sentient fish?

Is it possible to grant users sftp access without shell access? If yes, how is it implemented?

Alien invasion to probe us, why?

Is there a feather fall weight limit?

Making him into a bully (how to show mild violence)

Aligning symbols underneath each other neatly

Do authors have to be politically correct in article-writing?

Should I reinstall Linux when changing the laptop's CPU?

False written accusations not made public - is there law to cover this?

A Missing Symbol for This Logo

Odd 74HCT1G125 behaviour

Slow While Loop, Query Improvment Assistance

What are "industrial chops"?



Quickly creating a sparse array


Addition of sparse array objectsManipulating sparse array elementsDevising a sparse array ruleParallelizing sparse array constructionsparse array with listNon-numeric elements in banded sparse arrayAdding two SparseArrays produces zeros in the reported “NonzeroValues”SparseArray: accesing nonzero row and column entriesParallelize the construction of sparse matricesHow to construct a time-dependent matrix quickly?













4












$begingroup$


The motivation for my question is that I'm creating very large, very sparse symmetric matrices and finding the largest eigenvalue. (Think upwards of $10^5times 10^5$ size matrices, with at most $10^2$ nonzero entries on each row. However, to give a workable example, below I'll use $10^4times 10^4$ size matrices, with $30$ nonzero entries.) The entries are mostly independent of one another, although there is some time savings in working with one row at a time. (In the example below, I model this type of behavior by having the constant $c$ in the computation depend only on the row index. In the actual work I do, the dependence isn't quite that simple.) By symmetry, we may focus on the part of the matrix above the main diagonal. (For simplicity, I'm assuming the main diagonal is zero in the example below.)



So, to give a toy example consider the following code:



M = Table[0.0, {i, 1, 10000}, {j, 1, 10000}];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
M[[PossibleColumns[[j]], i]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
M[[i, PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
],
{i, 1, 9999}
];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


The creation of the large array takes a couple seconds, and seems to fill up about 1 GB of RAM. (For the larger matrices I want to build, I quickly run out of RAM.) It takes about 3 seconds to update the nonzero entries in the matrix $M$. Finally, the eigenvalue function takes about 3 minutes.



If I replace the top line with the new line



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];


and rerun the entire code, then there are no RAM problems (even for much, much larger matrices). The eigenvalue step is almost instantaneous. However, the updating takes over an hour! I was very surprised that the updating takes so long, so I made the following intermediate version, which rather than updating each entry of $M$ independently, it updates each row of $M$ once.



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
jRow = SparseArray[{}, {10000}, 0.0];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
jRow[[PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
];
M[[i]] = jRow,
{i, 1, 9999}
];
M = M + Transpose[M];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


This has the RAM savings, and the eigenvalue savings, and finishes the updating of $M$ in a little over 4.5 minutes.



My question is this: Is there a way to keep (most of) the RAM savings of using a sparse array, along with the time saving in the eigenvalue computation, but also reduce the time used in updating $M$ down to the timing in the first example (which only used 3 seconds)?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can express the values of the non-zero terms as a function of the position indices, you should be able to construct the SparseArray from the ground up, by giving a list of rules, or by using patterns and conditions. That should be MUCH better than modifying them element-wise.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB Yes, I have a function $f(i,j)$ that gives the value of the matrix in the $(i,j)$ coordinate. Moreover, I have a function $g(i)$ that gives me a list of those $j$ such that the $(i,j)$ entry is nonzero. (In the toy example above, you would replace "PossibleColumns" by $g(i)$, and you would replace "c/RandomInteger[{1,10}]" with $f(i,j)$.) I don't know how to turn that into a faster population of the sparse array though; any help with the syntax would be appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    Can you share those functions, perhaps expressed both in plain language, and in Mathematica code? Just in case one of the two is more readable than the other.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Changing elements of sparse arrays is slow because the whole array must be re-built after each change. Do not assign elements in a loop!! Instead, generate a list like {i,j} -> value first, then built the sparse array in a single step.
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    1 hour ago
















4












$begingroup$


The motivation for my question is that I'm creating very large, very sparse symmetric matrices and finding the largest eigenvalue. (Think upwards of $10^5times 10^5$ size matrices, with at most $10^2$ nonzero entries on each row. However, to give a workable example, below I'll use $10^4times 10^4$ size matrices, with $30$ nonzero entries.) The entries are mostly independent of one another, although there is some time savings in working with one row at a time. (In the example below, I model this type of behavior by having the constant $c$ in the computation depend only on the row index. In the actual work I do, the dependence isn't quite that simple.) By symmetry, we may focus on the part of the matrix above the main diagonal. (For simplicity, I'm assuming the main diagonal is zero in the example below.)



So, to give a toy example consider the following code:



M = Table[0.0, {i, 1, 10000}, {j, 1, 10000}];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
M[[PossibleColumns[[j]], i]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
M[[i, PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
],
{i, 1, 9999}
];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


The creation of the large array takes a couple seconds, and seems to fill up about 1 GB of RAM. (For the larger matrices I want to build, I quickly run out of RAM.) It takes about 3 seconds to update the nonzero entries in the matrix $M$. Finally, the eigenvalue function takes about 3 minutes.



If I replace the top line with the new line



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];


and rerun the entire code, then there are no RAM problems (even for much, much larger matrices). The eigenvalue step is almost instantaneous. However, the updating takes over an hour! I was very surprised that the updating takes so long, so I made the following intermediate version, which rather than updating each entry of $M$ independently, it updates each row of $M$ once.



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
jRow = SparseArray[{}, {10000}, 0.0];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
jRow[[PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
];
M[[i]] = jRow,
{i, 1, 9999}
];
M = M + Transpose[M];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


This has the RAM savings, and the eigenvalue savings, and finishes the updating of $M$ in a little over 4.5 minutes.



My question is this: Is there a way to keep (most of) the RAM savings of using a sparse array, along with the time saving in the eigenvalue computation, but also reduce the time used in updating $M$ down to the timing in the first example (which only used 3 seconds)?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can express the values of the non-zero terms as a function of the position indices, you should be able to construct the SparseArray from the ground up, by giving a list of rules, or by using patterns and conditions. That should be MUCH better than modifying them element-wise.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB Yes, I have a function $f(i,j)$ that gives the value of the matrix in the $(i,j)$ coordinate. Moreover, I have a function $g(i)$ that gives me a list of those $j$ such that the $(i,j)$ entry is nonzero. (In the toy example above, you would replace "PossibleColumns" by $g(i)$, and you would replace "c/RandomInteger[{1,10}]" with $f(i,j)$.) I don't know how to turn that into a faster population of the sparse array though; any help with the syntax would be appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    Can you share those functions, perhaps expressed both in plain language, and in Mathematica code? Just in case one of the two is more readable than the other.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Changing elements of sparse arrays is slow because the whole array must be re-built after each change. Do not assign elements in a loop!! Instead, generate a list like {i,j} -> value first, then built the sparse array in a single step.
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    1 hour ago














4












4








4


1



$begingroup$


The motivation for my question is that I'm creating very large, very sparse symmetric matrices and finding the largest eigenvalue. (Think upwards of $10^5times 10^5$ size matrices, with at most $10^2$ nonzero entries on each row. However, to give a workable example, below I'll use $10^4times 10^4$ size matrices, with $30$ nonzero entries.) The entries are mostly independent of one another, although there is some time savings in working with one row at a time. (In the example below, I model this type of behavior by having the constant $c$ in the computation depend only on the row index. In the actual work I do, the dependence isn't quite that simple.) By symmetry, we may focus on the part of the matrix above the main diagonal. (For simplicity, I'm assuming the main diagonal is zero in the example below.)



So, to give a toy example consider the following code:



M = Table[0.0, {i, 1, 10000}, {j, 1, 10000}];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
M[[PossibleColumns[[j]], i]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
M[[i, PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
],
{i, 1, 9999}
];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


The creation of the large array takes a couple seconds, and seems to fill up about 1 GB of RAM. (For the larger matrices I want to build, I quickly run out of RAM.) It takes about 3 seconds to update the nonzero entries in the matrix $M$. Finally, the eigenvalue function takes about 3 minutes.



If I replace the top line with the new line



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];


and rerun the entire code, then there are no RAM problems (even for much, much larger matrices). The eigenvalue step is almost instantaneous. However, the updating takes over an hour! I was very surprised that the updating takes so long, so I made the following intermediate version, which rather than updating each entry of $M$ independently, it updates each row of $M$ once.



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
jRow = SparseArray[{}, {10000}, 0.0];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
jRow[[PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
];
M[[i]] = jRow,
{i, 1, 9999}
];
M = M + Transpose[M];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


This has the RAM savings, and the eigenvalue savings, and finishes the updating of $M$ in a little over 4.5 minutes.



My question is this: Is there a way to keep (most of) the RAM savings of using a sparse array, along with the time saving in the eigenvalue computation, but also reduce the time used in updating $M$ down to the timing in the first example (which only used 3 seconds)?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




The motivation for my question is that I'm creating very large, very sparse symmetric matrices and finding the largest eigenvalue. (Think upwards of $10^5times 10^5$ size matrices, with at most $10^2$ nonzero entries on each row. However, to give a workable example, below I'll use $10^4times 10^4$ size matrices, with $30$ nonzero entries.) The entries are mostly independent of one another, although there is some time savings in working with one row at a time. (In the example below, I model this type of behavior by having the constant $c$ in the computation depend only on the row index. In the actual work I do, the dependence isn't quite that simple.) By symmetry, we may focus on the part of the matrix above the main diagonal. (For simplicity, I'm assuming the main diagonal is zero in the example below.)



So, to give a toy example consider the following code:



M = Table[0.0, {i, 1, 10000}, {j, 1, 10000}];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
M[[PossibleColumns[[j]], i]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
M[[i, PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
],
{i, 1, 9999}
];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


The creation of the large array takes a couple seconds, and seems to fill up about 1 GB of RAM. (For the larger matrices I want to build, I quickly run out of RAM.) It takes about 3 seconds to update the nonzero entries in the matrix $M$. Finally, the eigenvalue function takes about 3 minutes.



If I replace the top line with the new line



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];


and rerun the entire code, then there are no RAM problems (even for much, much larger matrices). The eigenvalue step is almost instantaneous. However, the updating takes over an hour! I was very surprised that the updating takes so long, so I made the following intermediate version, which rather than updating each entry of $M$ independently, it updates each row of $M$ once.



M = SparseArray[{}, {10000, 10000}, 0.0];
Do[
c = RandomInteger[{1, 10}];
jRow = SparseArray[{}, {10000}, 0.0];
PossibleColumns = RandomSample[Range[i + 1, 10000], Min[10000 - i - 1, 30]];
Do[
jRow[[PossibleColumns[[j]]]] = c/RandomInteger[{1, 10}],
{j, 1, Length[PossibleColumns]}
];
M[[i]] = jRow,
{i, 1, 9999}
];
M = M + Transpose[M];
Eigenvalues[M, 1];


This has the RAM savings, and the eigenvalue savings, and finishes the updating of $M$ in a little over 4.5 minutes.



My question is this: Is there a way to keep (most of) the RAM savings of using a sparse array, along with the time saving in the eigenvalue computation, but also reduce the time used in updating $M$ down to the timing in the first example (which only used 3 seconds)?







sparse-arrays






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









Pace NielsenPace Nielsen

1805




1805








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can express the values of the non-zero terms as a function of the position indices, you should be able to construct the SparseArray from the ground up, by giving a list of rules, or by using patterns and conditions. That should be MUCH better than modifying them element-wise.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB Yes, I have a function $f(i,j)$ that gives the value of the matrix in the $(i,j)$ coordinate. Moreover, I have a function $g(i)$ that gives me a list of those $j$ such that the $(i,j)$ entry is nonzero. (In the toy example above, you would replace "PossibleColumns" by $g(i)$, and you would replace "c/RandomInteger[{1,10}]" with $f(i,j)$.) I don't know how to turn that into a faster population of the sparse array though; any help with the syntax would be appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    Can you share those functions, perhaps expressed both in plain language, and in Mathematica code? Just in case one of the two is more readable than the other.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Changing elements of sparse arrays is slow because the whole array must be re-built after each change. Do not assign elements in a loop!! Instead, generate a list like {i,j} -> value first, then built the sparse array in a single step.
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    1 hour ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can express the values of the non-zero terms as a function of the position indices, you should be able to construct the SparseArray from the ground up, by giving a list of rules, or by using patterns and conditions. That should be MUCH better than modifying them element-wise.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB Yes, I have a function $f(i,j)$ that gives the value of the matrix in the $(i,j)$ coordinate. Moreover, I have a function $g(i)$ that gives me a list of those $j$ such that the $(i,j)$ entry is nonzero. (In the toy example above, you would replace "PossibleColumns" by $g(i)$, and you would replace "c/RandomInteger[{1,10}]" with $f(i,j)$.) I don't know how to turn that into a faster population of the sparse array though; any help with the syntax would be appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    Can you share those functions, perhaps expressed both in plain language, and in Mathematica code? Just in case one of the two is more readable than the other.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    1 hour ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Changing elements of sparse arrays is slow because the whole array must be re-built after each change. Do not assign elements in a loop!! Instead, generate a list like {i,j} -> value first, then built the sparse array in a single step.
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    1 hour ago








2




2




$begingroup$
If you can express the values of the non-zero terms as a function of the position indices, you should be able to construct the SparseArray from the ground up, by giving a list of rules, or by using patterns and conditions. That should be MUCH better than modifying them element-wise.
$endgroup$
– MarcoB
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
If you can express the values of the non-zero terms as a function of the position indices, you should be able to construct the SparseArray from the ground up, by giving a list of rules, or by using patterns and conditions. That should be MUCH better than modifying them element-wise.
$endgroup$
– MarcoB
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
@MarcoB Yes, I have a function $f(i,j)$ that gives the value of the matrix in the $(i,j)$ coordinate. Moreover, I have a function $g(i)$ that gives me a list of those $j$ such that the $(i,j)$ entry is nonzero. (In the toy example above, you would replace "PossibleColumns" by $g(i)$, and you would replace "c/RandomInteger[{1,10}]" with $f(i,j)$.) I don't know how to turn that into a faster population of the sparse array though; any help with the syntax would be appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Pace Nielsen
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
@MarcoB Yes, I have a function $f(i,j)$ that gives the value of the matrix in the $(i,j)$ coordinate. Moreover, I have a function $g(i)$ that gives me a list of those $j$ such that the $(i,j)$ entry is nonzero. (In the toy example above, you would replace "PossibleColumns" by $g(i)$, and you would replace "c/RandomInteger[{1,10}]" with $f(i,j)$.) I don't know how to turn that into a faster population of the sparse array though; any help with the syntax would be appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Pace Nielsen
1 hour ago














$begingroup$
Can you share those functions, perhaps expressed both in plain language, and in Mathematica code? Just in case one of the two is more readable than the other.
$endgroup$
– MarcoB
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
Can you share those functions, perhaps expressed both in plain language, and in Mathematica code? Just in case one of the two is more readable than the other.
$endgroup$
– MarcoB
1 hour ago






2




2




$begingroup$
Changing elements of sparse arrays is slow because the whole array must be re-built after each change. Do not assign elements in a loop!! Instead, generate a list like {i,j} -> value first, then built the sparse array in a single step.
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Changing elements of sparse arrays is slow because the whole array must be re-built after each change. Do not assign elements in a loop!! Instead, generate a list like {i,j} -> value first, then built the sparse array in a single step.
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
1 hour ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Let's assume we are given the following data:



n = 100000;
k = 100;

g[i_] := RandomSample[i + 1 ;; n, Min[n - i - 1, k]];
f[i_, jlist_] := RandomReal[{1, 10}, Length[jlist]];

rowcolumnindices = g /@ Range[1, n - 1];
rowlengths = Length /@ rowcolumnindices;
rowvalues = MapIndexed[
{jlist, i} [Function] f[i[[1]], jlist],
rowcolumnindices
];


Probably the most efficient way to populate the sparse array with this data is by preparing the CRS data by hand and to use the following undocumented constructor:



First @ AbsoluteTiming[
orderings = Ordering /@ rowcolumnindices;
columnindices = Partition[Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowcolumnindices, orderings}], 1];
rowpointers = Accumulate[Join[{0}, Length /@ rowcolumnindices, {0}]];
values = Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowvalues, orderings}];
M = # + Transpose[#] &[
SparseArray @@ {Automatic, {n, n}, 0., {1, {rowpointers, columnindices}, values}}
];
]



1.53083




I used machine real values here (not rational numbers) because they will be processed much faster, in particular in Eigenvalues.



The CRS format assumes that the column indices for each row are in ascending order. This is why we have to sort the column indices and the corresponding values first (this explains the extra fuzz around orderings).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    In the toy example I gave above, the entries are chosen randomly. In the actual computation I care about the entries are determined by the coordinates. I made the toy example different in this way for two reasons: (1) the deterministic function is very complicated, and (2) I wanted to easily create a large matrix to help illustrate the situation. So, I'm having trouble converting your beautiful ideas to my situation, because "rowvalues" is not so easily created. My problem really boils down to trying to put all that data in a list quickly, as you have done with rowvalues.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    40 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, I assumed that you can compute the values of each row before the actual matrix is constructed. I tried to address the functions f and g in my recent edit. The only difference of my function f to yours is that it expects a whole list of js as a second argument so that it creates all values of a row at once. Does this help?
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    29 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This looks great! I'm still trying to understand it all. I'll let you know soon if I have any further questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    24 mins ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192328%2fquickly-creating-a-sparse-array%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

Let's assume we are given the following data:



n = 100000;
k = 100;

g[i_] := RandomSample[i + 1 ;; n, Min[n - i - 1, k]];
f[i_, jlist_] := RandomReal[{1, 10}, Length[jlist]];

rowcolumnindices = g /@ Range[1, n - 1];
rowlengths = Length /@ rowcolumnindices;
rowvalues = MapIndexed[
{jlist, i} [Function] f[i[[1]], jlist],
rowcolumnindices
];


Probably the most efficient way to populate the sparse array with this data is by preparing the CRS data by hand and to use the following undocumented constructor:



First @ AbsoluteTiming[
orderings = Ordering /@ rowcolumnindices;
columnindices = Partition[Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowcolumnindices, orderings}], 1];
rowpointers = Accumulate[Join[{0}, Length /@ rowcolumnindices, {0}]];
values = Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowvalues, orderings}];
M = # + Transpose[#] &[
SparseArray @@ {Automatic, {n, n}, 0., {1, {rowpointers, columnindices}, values}}
];
]



1.53083




I used machine real values here (not rational numbers) because they will be processed much faster, in particular in Eigenvalues.



The CRS format assumes that the column indices for each row are in ascending order. This is why we have to sort the column indices and the corresponding values first (this explains the extra fuzz around orderings).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    In the toy example I gave above, the entries are chosen randomly. In the actual computation I care about the entries are determined by the coordinates. I made the toy example different in this way for two reasons: (1) the deterministic function is very complicated, and (2) I wanted to easily create a large matrix to help illustrate the situation. So, I'm having trouble converting your beautiful ideas to my situation, because "rowvalues" is not so easily created. My problem really boils down to trying to put all that data in a list quickly, as you have done with rowvalues.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    40 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, I assumed that you can compute the values of each row before the actual matrix is constructed. I tried to address the functions f and g in my recent edit. The only difference of my function f to yours is that it expects a whole list of js as a second argument so that it creates all values of a row at once. Does this help?
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    29 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This looks great! I'm still trying to understand it all. I'll let you know soon if I have any further questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    24 mins ago
















5












$begingroup$

Let's assume we are given the following data:



n = 100000;
k = 100;

g[i_] := RandomSample[i + 1 ;; n, Min[n - i - 1, k]];
f[i_, jlist_] := RandomReal[{1, 10}, Length[jlist]];

rowcolumnindices = g /@ Range[1, n - 1];
rowlengths = Length /@ rowcolumnindices;
rowvalues = MapIndexed[
{jlist, i} [Function] f[i[[1]], jlist],
rowcolumnindices
];


Probably the most efficient way to populate the sparse array with this data is by preparing the CRS data by hand and to use the following undocumented constructor:



First @ AbsoluteTiming[
orderings = Ordering /@ rowcolumnindices;
columnindices = Partition[Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowcolumnindices, orderings}], 1];
rowpointers = Accumulate[Join[{0}, Length /@ rowcolumnindices, {0}]];
values = Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowvalues, orderings}];
M = # + Transpose[#] &[
SparseArray @@ {Automatic, {n, n}, 0., {1, {rowpointers, columnindices}, values}}
];
]



1.53083




I used machine real values here (not rational numbers) because they will be processed much faster, in particular in Eigenvalues.



The CRS format assumes that the column indices for each row are in ascending order. This is why we have to sort the column indices and the corresponding values first (this explains the extra fuzz around orderings).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    In the toy example I gave above, the entries are chosen randomly. In the actual computation I care about the entries are determined by the coordinates. I made the toy example different in this way for two reasons: (1) the deterministic function is very complicated, and (2) I wanted to easily create a large matrix to help illustrate the situation. So, I'm having trouble converting your beautiful ideas to my situation, because "rowvalues" is not so easily created. My problem really boils down to trying to put all that data in a list quickly, as you have done with rowvalues.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    40 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, I assumed that you can compute the values of each row before the actual matrix is constructed. I tried to address the functions f and g in my recent edit. The only difference of my function f to yours is that it expects a whole list of js as a second argument so that it creates all values of a row at once. Does this help?
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    29 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This looks great! I'm still trying to understand it all. I'll let you know soon if I have any further questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    24 mins ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$

Let's assume we are given the following data:



n = 100000;
k = 100;

g[i_] := RandomSample[i + 1 ;; n, Min[n - i - 1, k]];
f[i_, jlist_] := RandomReal[{1, 10}, Length[jlist]];

rowcolumnindices = g /@ Range[1, n - 1];
rowlengths = Length /@ rowcolumnindices;
rowvalues = MapIndexed[
{jlist, i} [Function] f[i[[1]], jlist],
rowcolumnindices
];


Probably the most efficient way to populate the sparse array with this data is by preparing the CRS data by hand and to use the following undocumented constructor:



First @ AbsoluteTiming[
orderings = Ordering /@ rowcolumnindices;
columnindices = Partition[Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowcolumnindices, orderings}], 1];
rowpointers = Accumulate[Join[{0}, Length /@ rowcolumnindices, {0}]];
values = Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowvalues, orderings}];
M = # + Transpose[#] &[
SparseArray @@ {Automatic, {n, n}, 0., {1, {rowpointers, columnindices}, values}}
];
]



1.53083




I used machine real values here (not rational numbers) because they will be processed much faster, in particular in Eigenvalues.



The CRS format assumes that the column indices for each row are in ascending order. This is why we have to sort the column indices and the corresponding values first (this explains the extra fuzz around orderings).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let's assume we are given the following data:



n = 100000;
k = 100;

g[i_] := RandomSample[i + 1 ;; n, Min[n - i - 1, k]];
f[i_, jlist_] := RandomReal[{1, 10}, Length[jlist]];

rowcolumnindices = g /@ Range[1, n - 1];
rowlengths = Length /@ rowcolumnindices;
rowvalues = MapIndexed[
{jlist, i} [Function] f[i[[1]], jlist],
rowcolumnindices
];


Probably the most efficient way to populate the sparse array with this data is by preparing the CRS data by hand and to use the following undocumented constructor:



First @ AbsoluteTiming[
orderings = Ordering /@ rowcolumnindices;
columnindices = Partition[Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowcolumnindices, orderings}], 1];
rowpointers = Accumulate[Join[{0}, Length /@ rowcolumnindices, {0}]];
values = Join @@ MapThread[Part, {rowvalues, orderings}];
M = # + Transpose[#] &[
SparseArray @@ {Automatic, {n, n}, 0., {1, {rowpointers, columnindices}, values}}
];
]



1.53083




I used machine real values here (not rational numbers) because they will be processed much faster, in particular in Eigenvalues.



The CRS format assumes that the column indices for each row are in ascending order. This is why we have to sort the column indices and the corresponding values first (this explains the extra fuzz around orderings).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 30 mins ago

























answered 1 hour ago









Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher

55.2k575154




55.2k575154












  • $begingroup$
    In the toy example I gave above, the entries are chosen randomly. In the actual computation I care about the entries are determined by the coordinates. I made the toy example different in this way for two reasons: (1) the deterministic function is very complicated, and (2) I wanted to easily create a large matrix to help illustrate the situation. So, I'm having trouble converting your beautiful ideas to my situation, because "rowvalues" is not so easily created. My problem really boils down to trying to put all that data in a list quickly, as you have done with rowvalues.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    40 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, I assumed that you can compute the values of each row before the actual matrix is constructed. I tried to address the functions f and g in my recent edit. The only difference of my function f to yours is that it expects a whole list of js as a second argument so that it creates all values of a row at once. Does this help?
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    29 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This looks great! I'm still trying to understand it all. I'll let you know soon if I have any further questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    24 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    In the toy example I gave above, the entries are chosen randomly. In the actual computation I care about the entries are determined by the coordinates. I made the toy example different in this way for two reasons: (1) the deterministic function is very complicated, and (2) I wanted to easily create a large matrix to help illustrate the situation. So, I'm having trouble converting your beautiful ideas to my situation, because "rowvalues" is not so easily created. My problem really boils down to trying to put all that data in a list quickly, as you have done with rowvalues.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    40 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, I assumed that you can compute the values of each row before the actual matrix is constructed. I tried to address the functions f and g in my recent edit. The only difference of my function f to yours is that it expects a whole list of js as a second argument so that it creates all values of a row at once. Does this help?
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    29 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This looks great! I'm still trying to understand it all. I'll let you know soon if I have any further questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Pace Nielsen
    24 mins ago
















$begingroup$
In the toy example I gave above, the entries are chosen randomly. In the actual computation I care about the entries are determined by the coordinates. I made the toy example different in this way for two reasons: (1) the deterministic function is very complicated, and (2) I wanted to easily create a large matrix to help illustrate the situation. So, I'm having trouble converting your beautiful ideas to my situation, because "rowvalues" is not so easily created. My problem really boils down to trying to put all that data in a list quickly, as you have done with rowvalues.
$endgroup$
– Pace Nielsen
40 mins ago




$begingroup$
In the toy example I gave above, the entries are chosen randomly. In the actual computation I care about the entries are determined by the coordinates. I made the toy example different in this way for two reasons: (1) the deterministic function is very complicated, and (2) I wanted to easily create a large matrix to help illustrate the situation. So, I'm having trouble converting your beautiful ideas to my situation, because "rowvalues" is not so easily created. My problem really boils down to trying to put all that data in a list quickly, as you have done with rowvalues.
$endgroup$
– Pace Nielsen
40 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Yes, I assumed that you can compute the values of each row before the actual matrix is constructed. I tried to address the functions f and g in my recent edit. The only difference of my function f to yours is that it expects a whole list of js as a second argument so that it creates all values of a row at once. Does this help?
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
29 mins ago




$begingroup$
Yes, I assumed that you can compute the values of each row before the actual matrix is constructed. I tried to address the functions f and g in my recent edit. The only difference of my function f to yours is that it expects a whole list of js as a second argument so that it creates all values of a row at once. Does this help?
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
29 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
This looks great! I'm still trying to understand it all. I'll let you know soon if I have any further questions.
$endgroup$
– Pace Nielsen
24 mins ago




$begingroup$
This looks great! I'm still trying to understand it all. I'll let you know soon if I have any further questions.
$endgroup$
– Pace Nielsen
24 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192328%2fquickly-creating-a-sparse-array%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Why do type traits not work with types in namespace scope?What are POD types in C++?Why can templates only be...

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?Why do tsunami waves begin with the water flowing away...

Should I use Docker or LXD?How to cache (more) data on SSD/RAM to avoid spin up?Unable to get Windows File...