Re: [amibroker] Re: Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with Great Ranking Tool, AmiBroker Email List Archive

2008/7/12 Ara Kaloustian <ara1@xxxxxxxxxx>:

First, you need to define what you consider the "best".

Then you can use your criteria to select them

----- Original Message -----

From: Louis Préfontaine

To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:13 PM

Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with Great Ranking Tool

Hi,

I tried to run this code and I just clicked "verify syntax" and it was gone... kind of crashed or made me wait forever...

Is it possible to use this code on 8000 tickers and then select the 500 "best" tickers in the list and use them for backtest? How would one do that?

Thanks,

Louis

2008/7/12 Paul Ho <paul.tsho@xxxxxxxxx>:

upgrade to the latest version of AB

From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rijnaars
Sent: Saturday, 12 July 2008 3:32 PM

To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [amibroker] Re: Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with Great Ranking Tool

Can some one help me i try to run this ranking tool but get the next
errors
RestorePriceArrays();

n = !IsNull(mRoc);

m = !IsNull(mRSI);

roccount +=
-------------^

Error 30.
Syntax error

n = !IsNull(mRoc);

m = !IsNull(mRSI);

roccount += n;

rsicount +=
-------------^

Error 30.
Syntax error

than the result for only one ticker in my watchlist shows up

regards Rene

--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bruce1r" <brucer@xx> wrote:
>
> Tomasz -
>
> Great diagnosis. I should've have thought of it. I've seen it
happen
> to a number of the FT users. That is why we stressed cache settings
> in the 2007 conference class that you helped with.
>
> Ken -
>
> There is no reason to run anything > 5200 bars with a FT database.
> Soon that will change to a lower number at next weekend's
conversion.
> And, the cache size setting needs to big big enough to handle > 500
> symbols. For FT, that is at least > 83 MB. FWIW, I run 5200 bars,
> 1000 symbols, and 160MB cache.
>
> Paul -
>
> In the interest of conveying some info constructively, let me
explain
> why I posted what I did.
>
> First, though, I think you might want to re-consider abount a range
> algorithm being slower. A 2*N algorithm like the range algorithm
will
> almost ALWAYS be faster than a N*N algorithm - it will be much
faster
> for large N.
>
> I hope that Ken is able to get a N*N approach fast enough. I
totally
> agree with you that it can be. He is still too slow, though.
>
> But, the other reason that I suggested range values to Ken was than
he
> is using it for ranking and probably rotational systems. This is
what
> many from the FastTrack community gravitate toward. He will have to
> confirm that part. But, in that setting, the range percentages can
> capture info about closeness of mixed scores that ordinal ranking
can
> mask. If it fits the score distribution characteristics, this can
be
> used to minimize rotation with little impact on fitness - which is
> typically a goal.
>
> Lastly, about the Pad and Align, I can only tell you that my
> experience is different. In a 20 year database like the FastTrack
> database like I think that Ken is using, if you only need a few
years
> of backtest, then aligning to a symbol with a short history will
> dramatically speed things up (thanks to Tomasz's implementation).
>
> Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion. Let me know if you
> need any details about the above. I'm getting back to some other
> trading work.
>
> -- BruceR
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Indeed I have run this code on larger watch list and can confirm
> Paul timings.
> >
> > I am running Athonl 64 x2 @2GHz
> >
> > For 100 symbols it is just 50 seconds.
> > For 500 symbols (SP500) and history from 1992 till now (16 years)
it
> is just 13 minutes.
> > If the same 500 symbols are explored using QuickAFL turned on and
> last 4 years only, the time shrinks to 6 minutes 49 seconds .
> > These are actual timings, not progress bar estimate.
> > Yes the time grows slightly as process progresses but it is not
that
> surprising considering the fact it outputs
> > 500 * number of quotes lines (1.3 million lines for 10 year
history)
> >
> > I think this timings are quite OK for N*N algorithm.
> >
> > Memory also is not an issue. Running it on 500 symbols 16 years
> history with full caching enabled
> > caused that AmiBroker consumed 175MB of RAM.
> >
> > If you are getting timings in hours, I suspect that you are using
> sub-optimum cache settings. Please go to
> > Tools->Preferences, "Data" tab and increase "in-memory" cache to
at
> least 500 symbols (the size of watch list under test).
> > If cache is too small it will force many disk accesses. With cache
> large enough - everything will be in RAM.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tomasz Janeczko
> > amibroker.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Ho
> > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:29 AM
> > Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with
Great
> Ranking Tool
> >
> >
> > Ken
> > As you know, the algorithm that I gave you increase dramatically
> with the size of the watchlist. However, the times that you stated
> isn't in line with what I experience. I tried my code (which is
> similar to yours, with exception that it also stores the value in
OI)
> on 2 machines. One very old machine, a single core AMD which is
about
> 5 years old, Window tells me it is an AMD XP 2600 with 1G of ram. I
> use a watchlist of 472 symbols, running from 1/1/2000 to now. the
time
> taken is 6.5 minutes (from the progress bar). and on a newer machine
> Core 2 duo E6600, it took just over 1 minute. So this is very
> different to the one and a half hour that you are talking about.
> > So I am wondering what machine you're running on. and what kind
of
> AA setting you use? What I will suggest is that you DONT Check pad
> and align, this will increase the number of bars by quite a lot. You
> can check QuickAFL though.
> > I have also given you a few suggestions in one of the other
posts,
> including monthly bars, normalisation of scores etc
> http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/message/126336. Did
> you take a look at that?
> > Despite its shortcoming, I think the N^2 algorithm will still
> perform better/faster than Bruce's suggestions. Pad and Align &/or
ATC
> will slow it down even more. In the past, I have made a ranking dll
> which uses a 2 dimensional array, and basically insert the stock
into
> the right ranking order as each symbol is scanned, a little bit like
> Fred's algorithm but on a total array basis. That is certainly very
> fast. In addition, Tomasz's custom Backtester code has the potential
> also to be quite fast without the use of dll. I have ported the code
> so it stores directly in the OI during after optimization. However,
it
> comes back with an internal error in certain instances if the
> watchlist gets over 1400 symbols and no of bars is more than 2500. I
> have sent it to Tomasz for him to have a look at, when he comes
back.
> I can share that with you. But my point is that the N^2 idea should
be
> fast enough for what you are talking about ~500 stocks. You see
there
> is a big difference between 1 minute and 1 and half hour.
> > Send me a private email if you like, I'm curious why there such
a
> big difference.
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
--------
> > From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Close
> > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2008 7:40 AM
> > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with
> Great Ranking Tool
> >
> >
> > Bruce:
> >
> > Thanks for giving me another way to go.
> >
> > In case you have been following (or remember) this topic from
a
> ways back,
> > Fred was generous enough to write me a code concept for doing
> all of this
> > (but end of range only) and I successfully converted it to my
> "endpoint"
> > recipe of 11 or so indicators. It did ok for relatively large
> watchlists
> > (even the RUT) but could not handle very well some much larger
> watchlists in
> > the many 1000s. But, it gave me a combined ranking on any end
> point date I
> > set in the AA window. My absolute minimum requirement is to
create
> > combo-rank-scores on a monthly basis but I was pleasantly
> surprised when
> > Paul Ho served up a concept to create daily combo-rank-scores
on
> a daily
> > basis, but then euphoria changed to despair as I encountered
the
> n^2 time
> > factor.
> >
> > So, thanks to you and others I have a variety of ways to
> consider getting to
> > the end of this problem.
> >
> > 1. Your suggestion of normalized indicators and using a final
> percentage
> > value as the combo rank.
> >
> > 2. Taking Fred's code and finding a way to manipulate the
> EndofRange date,
> > basically repeating his code over and over on the same
watchlist
> but with
> > changing EndofRange dates. (I still have to do something with
> the collection
> > of combo-scores I will accumulate by date, but that is another
> issue.*** see
> > below) I have even considered manually repeating the process
to
> the end
> > point (only 12 runs per year x the 8 years I want to test
over).
> >
> > 3. Taking Paul Ho's code which ranks daily and either living
> with the
> > limitation in the Watchlist population or running the thing
over
> night.
> > Since I have speed problems now with 2 indicators and 150+
> symbols, I
> > probably will drop off the cliff with 11 indicators and the
same
> 150+
> > symbols. An alternate which I plan to test next is to see how
> Paul's code
> > performs on a Weekly or even Monthly compressed basis,
although
> if symbol
> > number is controlling and not barcount, then this will not do
> much good.)
> >
> > 4. Using Tomasz's suggestion of the custombacktester, making
11
> separate
> > runs, then somehow combining the 11 different output reports,
> coming up with
> > a combo-rank that way.
> >
> > If you were approaching this, can you guess and say which
> approach you would
> > concentrate on. Right now, number 4 looks like it actually
might
> be the
> > least programming and execution intensive, but I am not sure.
I
> also have
> > to have a way of updating the entire system as time goes
> forward. That will
> > bring an additional set of challenges I am sure.
> >
> > Thanks for stepping in.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > *** Paul Ho shared a small COM code snippit that sticks an
> indicator nicely
> > into the OI field of a symbol, so that is the approach I want
to
> take once I
> > have the combo-rank to stick in the right place. Talk about
> complex......
> >
> > PS: Bruce, if you are still reading, would I have a better
chance of
> > executing my task in Trade vs Amibroker (sorry Thomasz)?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of bruce1r
> > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:03 PM
> > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [amibroker] Re: Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with Great
> Ranking Tool
> >
> > Ken -
> >
> > I'm too involved with something else right now, but let me see
> if I can
> > offer quick suggestion. First -
> >
> > 1. Tomasz is pointing out the solutions in (N^2) time are
never
> practical
> > past some limit. That means that the execution time goes up
with
> the square
> > of the number of items - ticker in this case. There are a
couple of
> > programming tricks that you can play, but I don't think that
> they are going
> > to get you where you want to go -
> >
> > For example, programming tricks can be used to make the N^2
> comparison
> > matrix "triangular". This reduces the comparisons by half.
> >
> > You might use Pad and Align to a ticker with a short history
to
> cut the time
> > further.
> >
> > But, this is still going to leave you in a long timeframe.
> >
> > 2. It looks like you are trying to add unbounded indicators
and
> use the
> > ordinal values to normalize them so that they can be
combined.
> > Use of the custom backtester would still require that you
> generate output
> > for each indicator and then combine them.
> >
> > Another approach might be to go out of the box a little and
> question your
> > basic assumption. Here's what I mean.
> >
> > Ordinal values can be used to convert unbounded ranges (such
as
> ROC) to
> > bounded values. But they can do some strange things to
outliers.
> > For example, consider these points. Say they are for tickers
> A,B,C,D,E on a
> > particular day -
> >
> > 0, 20, 21, 22, 200
> >
> > The point 22 is ranked #2 (higher value better) when it is not
> near the top.
> >
> > ON THE OTHER HAND, range value can be used also to convert
> unbounded data to
> > bounded. THEY REQUIRE A PRE-SCAN TO KNOW THE MIN AND MAX.
> > For the range above, it would convert to the following
percentages -
> >
> > 0, 10, 10.5, 11, 100
> >
> > This has some advantages for certain data distributions, but
some
> > disadvantages for others. For data where the probability of
> outliers is
> > low, it yields similar results.
> >
> > SO, HERE'S WHAT YOU MIGHT DO.
> >
> > 1. Take a watchlist and start a Exploration pass. When
> > Status("stocknum") == 0, loop through the list and find the
> global Min and
> > Max for each bar across all of the tickers for a given
indicator
> and store
> > it in an ATC in the H and L fields. For RSI and ROC, you would
> have 2 ATC's
> > - say ~MINMAX_ROC and ~MINMAX_RSI. This is 1 pass of all N
tickers.
> >
> > 2. Continuing on for stocknum 0 and for 1 - N, calculate the
ROC
> and RSI and
> > convert it to a percentage of the MIN and MAX range that you
> stored in the
> > ATC's for each bar -
> >
> > rangepcnt = ( tickscore - tickglobalmin ) / ( tickmax -
> tickglobalmin
> > ) * 100;
> >
> > 3. Now you can combine the range values because they are
> normalized.
> > If you divide by the number of indicators, you'll end up with
a
> combined
> > percentage.
> >
> > Now, while this is not an ordinal rank, it works perfectly
well
> for scoring
> > and is a solution in 2*N time. BTW - this reference won't mean
> much to most
> > here, but should to you - Ed Gilbert detailed this in Trade
doc
> almost a
> > decade ago.
> >
> > -- BruceR
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > No, look again. The code I provided gives the sort is ON BAR
> BY BAR
> > basis.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Tomasz Janeczko
> > > amibroker.com
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ken Close
> > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:08 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [amibroker] Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with
Great
> > Ranking Tool
> > >
> > >
> > > Tomasz:
> > >
> > > Thanks for all the help you give to so many people, me
included.
> > >
> > > However, while I did as you suggested with the
custombacktester,
> > and looked into the output file it produces, I am at a loss to
> know how to
> > use the data it contains. It is not all of the data that I
need.
> > >
> > > I want the ordinal ranking of multiple indicators, add them
all
> > together, per bar and per symbol, and use the final sum, of
the
> ORDINAL
> > ranks, as the ranking value for all symbols.
> > >
> > > This output represents what I want (but it is only for two
> > indicators). I want to turn this into my "recipe" which will
have
> > approximately 8 to 10 indicators.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I ran the custom backtest, opened the output.html file, and
see
> > that the symbols are sorted by the ranking value and it is
> indeed an ordinal
> > value. But, the sort is done only once (probably as a lastbar
> > basis) and Paul Ho sorting algorithm gives me ordinal values
for
> each bar
> > for each symbol (displayed above using a lastbar basis).
> > >
> > > You say Paul's code is inefficient, and maybe it is because
it
> > sorts all symbols by all bars. Can you suggest a change to the
> specific
> > code that would do what I want, but more efficiently?
> > >
> > > Again, thanks for all that you do.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Tomasz Janeczko
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 1:39 PM
> > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [amibroker] Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with
Great
> > Ranking Tool
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The code is inefficient because it repeats the sorting N*N
times
> > where N is number of symbols, while
> > > only N times is enough.
> > >
> > > Ranking is a process that is done during first pass of
backtest.
> > It is implemented efficiently.
> > > We can use this built-in process easily using custom
backtest
> > procedure as shown here:
> > >
> > > Note that this formula will not produce output in AA
directly.
> > Instead it will produce a HTML
> > > file (output.html) that you can later import to AA using AA,
> > File->Import
> > >
> > > Also please be warned that produced files are huge and
attempt to
> > load such big HTML file
> > > into Internet Explorer instead will easily hang IE.
> > >
> > > PositionScore = ROC( C, 14 ) + 1000; // WHAT YOU WANT TO
RANK
> > >
> > > SetOption("MaxOpenPositions", 10 );
> > > SetBacktestMode( backtestRegularRaw );
> > > Buy=1;
> > > Sell=0;
> > > SetCustomBacktestProc("");
> > > if( Status("action")==actionPortfolio )
> > > {
> > > bo = GetBacktesterObject();
> > >
> > > bo.PreProcess();
> > >
> > > dt = DateTime();
> > >
> > > fh = fopen("output.html", "w" );
> > >
> > >
> >
> fputs
("<TABLE><TR><TH>Symbol</TH><TH>Date/Time</TH><TH>Rank</TH></TR>\n",
> > fh );
> > >
> > > for( i = 0; i < BarCount; i++ )
> > > {
> > > k = 1;
> > > for( sig = bo.GetFirstSignal( i ); sig; sig =
> > bo.GetNextSignal( i ) )
> > > {
> > > Line = "<TR><TD>" + sig.Symbol + "</TD><TD>" +
> > > DateTimeToStr( dt[ i ] ) + "</TD><TD>" + k +
> > "</TD></TR>\n";
> > > fputs( Line, fh );
> > > k++;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > bo.PostProcess();
> > >
> > > fputs( "</TABLE>", fh );
> > > fclose( fh );
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Tomasz Janeczko
> > > amibroker.com
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ken Close
> > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:35 PM
> > > Subject: [amibroker] Paul Ho: Memory Challenges with Great
> > Ranking Tool
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul:
> > >
> > > my initial euphoria has turned somewhat downward as I
attempt to
> > apply the code below (just two indicators) to larger
Watchlists. You
> > sounded (from other messages) like someone who knows the ins
and
> outs of
> > memory management with AB, and perhaps can comment on how to
> keep the code
> > below from "bogging down".
> > >
> > > In spite of my many years with AB and its array processing,
my
> > mind still has a problem wrapping around what this code is
doing
> and why
> > (and whether) larger populated Watchlists will ever be able
to work.
> > >
> > > I initially tested against the DJ-30 (30 symbols) and all
went
> > well, fairly quickly, perhaps 10-15 seconds.
> > >
> > > I then tried the NDX (100 symbols) and things went more
slowly
> > but finished. I noticed the symbols appearing in the AA window
> more slowly.
> > >
> > > I have not been able to nor wanted to wait for the SP-500,
as
> > the symbols appear more and more slowly and the est time
counter
> was saying
> > something like 1 1/2 hours to complete 500 symbols.
> > >
> > > I was assuming that the code had to collect or process all
> > symbols before it could make comparisons among them---this is
> probably false
> > or else why would processed symbols start to appear in the AA
> window while
> > it is still accessing symbols.
> > >
> > > What suggestions can you make, given your understanding of
the
> > code and AB, that would minimize the processing of large
member
> watchlists?
> > >
> > > Can adding a SetBarsRequired in the right place limit the
number
> > of lookback bars that are processed, and thus speed up
execution?
> > >
> > > As the number of indicators I wish to process into a "Total
> > Rank" score increases, I imagine that executing this code will
> get slower
> > and slower and may not be possible at all. Would you agree?
> > >
> > > Thanks for any added help.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Close
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:47 AM
> > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [amibroker] What a Great Ranking Tool
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Ho has come up with a supurb ranking tool. I have
expanded
> > it to two indicators. Feel free to expand the code structure
to
> any number
> > of indicators.
> > >
> > > Possible next step: stick the Tot_Rank values into the OI
field
> > for the symbols, then Plot the Ranks for a visual
representation
> of "where
> > the symbol is over time".
> > >
> > > The possibilities are endless (or at least enlarged because
of
> > Paul's code idea). Thanks Paul for your creative input.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > > // Ranking_Alt01.afl KSC 07/05/2008
> > >
> > > // Original code by Paul Ho, Amibroker list 07/05/2008
> > >
> > > // Modifications and expansions by Ken Close 07/05/2008
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > // Will ordinal rank every symbol in watchlist for every
bar.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > mOwnROC = ROC(C, 14);
> > >
> > > mOwnRSI = RSIa(C, 14);
> > >
> > > mRoc = 0;
> > >
> > > mRSI = 0;
> > >
> > > list = CategoryGetSymbols(categoryWatchlist, 16);
> > >
> > > ROCcount[0] = rocrank[0] = 0;
> > >
> > > RSIcount[0] = RSIrank[0] = 0;
> > >
> > > for(i = 0; (sym = StrExtract(list, i)) != ""; i++)
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > SetForeign(sym);
> > >
> > > mRoc = ROC(C, 14);
> > >
> > > mRSI = RSIa(C, 14);
> > >
> > > RestorePriceArrays();
> > >
> > > n = !IsNull(mRoc);
> > >
> > > m = !IsNull(mRSI);
> > >
> > > roccount += n;
> > >
> > > rsicount += m;
> > >
> > > rocrank = IIf(Nz(mRoc) > mOwnROC, Rocrank + n, rocrank);
> > >
> > > rsirank = IIf(Nz(mRsi) > mOwnRSI, Rsirank + m, rsirank);
> > >
> > > Totrank = rocrank + rsirank;
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > ROCn = ROC(C, 14);
> > >
> > > RSIn = RSIa(C, 14);
> > >
> > > Filter = 1;
> > >
> > > Buy = Sell = 0;
> > >
> > > AddColumn(ROCn, "ROCn",1.2);
> > >
> > > AddColumn(RSIn, "RSIn",1.2);
> > >
> > > AddColumn(mRoc, "MROC", 1.2);
> > >
> > > AddColumn(ROCrank, "ROCRank", 1.0);
> > >
> > > AddColumn(RSIrank, "rsirank",1.0);
> > >
> > > AddColumn(Totrank, "Totrank", 1.0);
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > // To check the sorting, run on a watchlist, then click
once on
> > the date column,
> > >
> > > // Then shift click on one of the indicators, ie, RSIn, and
you
> > will see the
> > >
> > > // ordinal values in order.
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Please note that this group is for discussion between users
only.
> >
> > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly
to
> SUPPORT {at}
> > amibroker.com
> >
> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check
DEVLOG:
> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> >
> > For other support material please check also:
> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>