|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hello,
Also, as to why if() statement inside loop is faster than calling Max:
Well, people coming from "C" language tend to think that Max is a macro.
But it is not in AFL because it is array function and can't be implemented
as macro. Actually Max has different execution paths depending
on arguments, so it is actually a virtual function that chooses different
code paths depending on arguments provided. If both are scalars,
then Max is computed as scalar, if both are arrays then Max is computed
as array operator and if one is array and second is scalar then
result is array but scalar has to be applied separately to each element
of the other argument.
Now, your code calls Max() funciton the number of bars times
and each call involves above parameter checking and call overhead
regardless if new maximum is here or not.
if() - version does the assignment only when new max is found.
Since all arithmetic, logic and comparison operators are hand
optimized the check alone (<) is very fast
and assuming that new maximum occurs only rarely doing comparison
alone means a lot less work than virtual function call.
Best regards,
Tomasz Janeczko
amibroker.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [amibroker] Timing test example between Arrays and Loops
> Hello,
>
> Yes, if you are using virtualization and run Windows XP on Mac,
> you may not get correct measurements of time using Windows
> High resolution timers.
> They depend on hardware counter found on the CPU
> and RTDSC CPU instruciton. If hardware is virtualized, then
> measurements may be off.
> Also if technologies like Cool&Quiet (AMD), SpeedStep (Intel) are
> enabled that modify CPU clock in real-time the accurracy may be affected.
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896256
>
>
> I was trying your code on my end and initially it does not work
> (it displays constantly "Warning -- ..... Edit AFL oto reset SBR or increase length parameter).
> Of course neither worked.
> So I changed that if statement that caused problem to
> if ( ParamTrigger("Reset Averages", "Click to Reset" ) ) {
>
> On 127us for 10000 bars len and 125us for 1000 bars.
> So the results are identical (this is on AMD 64x2 @2GHz).
> I repeated the same test on my notebook (Intel Core 2) and again results are the same.
>
> Also array operator was much faster on my end (10us) for 12200 loaded bars.
>
> So I can only say that Parallels is doing tricks with your timings,
> and I would not trust any measurements done under virtualization software.
>
> I guess that Mac OS is doing preemption of virtual machine so it looses control of CPU
> for given timeslice and that leads to higher timings than they really are
> because client Windows does not "know" that it runs under virtualized hardware and thinks
> that numbers reported by RTDSC are reliable while they are not because some time is spent
> on host OS (MacOS) doing its job. And this is somewhat random because Windows client OS does
> not know when it is preemptied.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Brown" <see3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Timing test example between Arrays and Loops
>
>
>> Tomasz,
>>
>> I had a typo in the previous results. The 1,000 and 10,000 cases were
>> swapped.
>>
>> I still can not explain the differences I am seeing. I have tried
>> rearranging my code in many ways and the differences remain about the
>> same, 2x more time for 10x shorter loop. There might be some overhead
>> associated with the timer function itself in my system since I am
>> running XP in a Parallels virtualization environment on a Mac. There
>> might be an emulated component that is making these numbers come out
>> different than I expect and your results also.
>>
>> However, even though I am not certain about the absolute results, on a
>> relative basis I have already found an interesting speed difference in
>> 3 different approaches to the example problem, which I will explain
>> for the benefit of others.
>>
>> I tried three different ways to do a Max() function in a loop (times
>> are per 1000 bars over a 10,000 bar length):
>>
>> 1. MaxPrice = Max( MaxPrice, C[i] ); // 585us
>> 2. MaxPrice = IIf( MaxPrice < C[i], C[i], MaxPrice ); // 860us
>> 3. if ( MaxPrice < C[i] ) { MaxPrice = C[i]; } // 100us
>>
>> formula 2 was 1.5 times slower than formula 1, which I would expect.
>> formula 3 was 6 times faster than formula 1, which was a big surprise.
>>
>> I was sure that a Max() function would be faster than an if control
>> statement. Obviously, my intuition was not as good as the facts
>> proved. On further thought though it makes sense that it should be
>> faster because, just one comparison has to take place and no
>> assignment most of the time. So, it only has to do half the work --
>> but 6 times faster?
>>
>> This example shows why it is important to have a good intuitive
>> understanding of which AFL operations are fast or slow to code the
>> fastest formula.
>>
>> 4. MaxPrice = LastValue( HHV( C, Length ) ); // 23us
>>
>> The array version of this solution in formula 4, blows away the others
>> by a factor of 2 to 20 depending on the overhead details -- as long as
>> all the bars are used in both cases. You certainly know how to
>> optimize the array operators. Fantastic job!
>>
>> However, when the array has to use all the bars, and a loop only has
>> to use 10% of the bars, then the loop could end up blowing away the
>> array operations. This is not the most common case though. It would
>> be good if the problem was simplified to the extent that the array
>> operations were always faster, Then no thought would have to be given
>> to loops at all. If the number of bars back can optionally be set to
>> a smaller number, arrays will always be the fastest solution by a
>> mile. Then loops would only be used when the logic is too complex for
>> built-in array operations. -- just thinking out loud.
>>
>> I made some minor improvements to my example code, so I am attaching
>> it again at the end of this thread and snipping off the old one.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Dennis Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Tomasz,
>>>
>>> Thank you for looking at it.
>>>
>>> On my machine, I get the following results:
>>>
>>> 1,000 Base cycle length:
>>> Loop Overhead = 181us / 1000 bars
>>> Loop Operator = 576us / 1000 bars
>>>
>>> 10,000 Base cycle length:
>>> Loop Overhead = 240us / 1000 bars
>>> Loop Operator = 1024us / 1000 bars
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Tomasz Janeczko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have run your code and results are pretty much the same in both
>>>> settings.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Tomasz Janeczko
>>>> amibroker.com
>>>>
>>>> Dennis Brown wrote:
>>>>> Hello Tomasz,
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is some AFL I wrote to explore the speed difference between
>>>>> Array and Loop operations. I wanted to explore a number of
>>>>> different
>>>>> array operations to see if I could speed up my indicators.
>>>>>
>>>>> It shows the difference in speed for finding the highest value in a
>>>>> whole array.
>>>>> I am not sure my math is correct though, because one of the results
>>>>> seem counter intuitive.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance:
>>>>>
>>>>> I test a for() loop that does nothing in order to get the loop
>>>>> overhead. I subtract that number from the loop that is doing the
>>>>> real
>>>>> operation to get just the time to do the one operation. I
>>>>> subtracted
>>>>> off the loop overhead because a loop will usually have a lot of
>>>>> operations that spread out the overhead. I do this for 1,000 cycles
>>>>> and for 10,000 cycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect the time to execute a single AFL line after
>>>>> subtracting
>>>>> off the overhead would be the same regardless of the number of
>>>>> cycles. However, the results say that it takes almost twice as long
>>>>> to execute that operation in a 1,000 cycle loop than a 10,000 cycle
>>>>> loop. Since this is not what I would expect, so I have to assume I
>>>>> did something wrong. I figured I should ask for a review before
>>>>> making statements about how much faster arrays are.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, the array operation shows almost one third of the
>>>>> time per bar when going from 1,000 to 10,000 bars, which is
>>>>> reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I missing something in my understanding, or am I just a lousy AFL
>>>>> coder? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Dennis
>>>>>
>>
>> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> // Simple test code to show speed difference between loop and array
>> operations -- 7/4/2009 Dennis Brown
>> // Edit this AFL for each comparison of equivelent operations
>> // Check both 1000 and 10,000 bar operations to derive the overhead
>> // Timing on one pass is jumpy, so it will avarage passes for a large
>> term average -- just wait a while
>> // Watch out for differences in operation lengths due to one way
>> nature of SetBarsRequired()
>> // Do the short cycle length first, then the long one, then edit AFL
>> with short one selected to reset SBR -- what a pain
>> // If I could switch to lower SBR numbers on the fly, I would display
>> a complete curve with overheads
>> // Number of bars loaded seems to always be 200 more than the
>> requested number with SBR
>> // Interestingly, //comments seem to run a little faster than /*
>> comments */ in the timing loop
>> //
>> LoopText = ArrayText = ""; // init and make global
>>
>> function LoopOperation( Length ) { /* Edit this function with the loop
>> operator to be tested */
>> GetPerformanceCounter( 1 ); /* reset the timer */
>> MaxPrice = 0;
>> MinPrice = 0;
>> for ( i=0; i<Length; i++ ) {
>> /* insert the loop operation(s) to be tested below */
>> if ( MaxPrice < C[i] ) { MaxPrice = C[i]; }
>> // MaxPrice = Max( MaxPrice, C[i] );
>> // MaxPrice = IIf( MaxPrice < C[i], C[i], MaxPrice );
>> }
>> time = GetPerformanceCounter();
>> LoopText = "if ( MaxPrice < C[i] ) { MaxPrice = C[i];" ; /* duplicate
>> operator here for display output */
>> return round( (1000000/Length)*time ); /* returns time in
>> microseconds per 1000 */
>> }
>>
>> function ArrayOperation( Length ) { /* Edit this function with the
>> array operator to be tested */
>> GetPerformanceCounter( 1 );
>> /* insert the array operation(s) to be tested below */
>> MaxPrice = LastValue( HHV( C, Length ) );
>> time = GetPerformanceCounter();
>> ArrayText = "MaxPrice = LastValue( HHV( C, Length ) );" ; /*
>> duplicate operator here for display output */
>> return round( (1000000/Length)*time );
>> }
>>
>> function LoopOverhead( Length ) {
>> GetPerformanceCounter( True );
>> for ( i=0; i<Length; i++ ) { ; }
>> time = GetPerformanceCounter();
>> return round( (1000000/Length)*time );
>> }
>>
>> // main routine
>> LastSBRLength = StaticVarGet( "LastSBRParameterValue" );
>> SBRLength = Param( "Base cycle length", 1000, 1000, 10000, 9000 );
>> Length = BarCount-200;
>> if ( ParamTrigger("Reset Averages", "Click to Reset" ) OR
>> LastSBRLength != SBRLength OR Length != SBRLength ) {
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeSum0", 0 );
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeSum1", 0 );
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeSum2", 0 );
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeCycles", 0 );
>> StaticVarSet( "LastSBRParameterValue", SBRLength );
>> Title = " Warning -- SetBarsRequired() can not reduce bars -- Edit
>> AFL to reset SBR or increase length parameter";
>> }
>> else { // only execute the code if all the bar requirements match so
>> we get accurate results (i.e., first cycle is all bars)
>>
>> TimeSum0 = StaticVarGet( "TimeSum0" );
>> TimeSum1 = StaticVarGet( "TimeSum1" );
>> TimeSum2 = StaticVarGet( "TimeSum2" );
>> TimeCycles = 1 + StaticVarGet( "TimeCycles" );
>>
>> TimeSum0 += LoopOverhead( Length ); // loop overhead to be tested
>> TimeSum1 += LoopOperation( Length ); // loop operator to be tested
>> TimeSum2 += ArrayOperation( Length ); // array operator to be tested
>>
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeSum0", TimeSum0 );
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeSum1", TimeSum1 );
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeSum2", TimeSum2 );
>> StaticVarSet( "TimeCycles", TimeCycles );
>>
>> Time0 = round( TimeSum0 / TimeCycles );
>> Time1 = round( TimeSum1 / TimeCycles );
>> Time2 = round( TimeSum2 / TimeCycles );
>>
>> OpTime = Time1-Time0; // subtract off the constant loop overhead
>> speedup = NumToStr( OpTime /Time2, 0.1 );
>> if ( Length != SBRLength ) { warning = " !!! Warning Length
>> Mismatch !!!"; } else { warning = ""; }
>>
>> Title = "Per 1000 bars (cycles) Tming Test\n" +
>> "Bars Loaded = " + BarCount + "\n" +
>> "Base Cycle Length = " + Length + warning + "\n\n" +
>> "Looped Operation: " + LoopText +
>> "\n\n" +
>> "Loop Overhead = " + time0 + "us\n" +
>> "Looped Operator = " + OpTime + "us\n\n" +
>> "Array Operation: " + ArrayText +
>> "\n\n" +
>> "Array Operator = " + time2 + "us\n" +
>> "Speedup Factor = " + speedup;
>>
>> } // end of active code
>>
>> RequestTimedRefresh( 1 );
>> //Override all bar requirements for our test
>> SetBarsRequired( SBRLength, sbrAll );
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
>> This group is for the discussion between users only.
>> This is *NOT* technical support channel.
>>
>> TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
>> SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
>>
>> TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
>> http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
>> (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
>>
>> For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
>> http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
> This group is for the discussion between users only.
> This is *NOT* technical support channel.
>
> TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
> SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
>
> TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
> http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
> (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
>
> For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
(submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|