I wrote a method to calculate the cosine distance between two arrays:
def cosine_distance(a, b):
if len(a) != len(b):
return False
numerator = 0
denoma = 0
denomb = 0
for i in range(len(a)):
numerator += a[i]*b[i]
denoma += abs(a[i])**2
denomb += abs(b[i])**2
result = 1 - numerator / (sqrt(denoma)*sqrt(denomb))
return result
Running it can be very slow on a large array. Is there an optimized version of this method that would run faster?
Update: I've tried all the suggestions to date, including scipy. Here's the version to beat, incorporating suggestions from Mike and Steve:
def cosine_distance(a, b):
if len(a) != len(b):
raise ValueError, "a and b must be same length" #Steve
numerator = 0
denoma = 0
denomb = 0
for i in range(len(a)): #Mike's optimizations:
ai = a[i] #only calculate once
bi = b[i]
numerator += ai*bi #faster than exponent (barely)
denoma += ai*ai #strip abs() since it's squaring
denomb += bi*bi
result = 1 - numerator / (sqrt(denoma)*sqrt(denomb))
return result
If you can use SciPy, you can use
cosine
fromspatial.distance
:http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/spatial.distance.html
If you can't use SciPy, you could try to obtain a small speedup by rewriting your Python (EDIT: but it didn't work out like I thought it would, see below).
It is better to raise an exception when the lengths of a and b are mismatched.
By using generator expressions inside of calls to
sum()
you can calculate your values with most of the work being done by the C code inside of Python. This should be faster than using afor
loop.I haven't timed this so I can't guess how much faster it might be. But the SciPy code is almost certainly written in C or C++ and it should be about as fast as you can get.
If you are doing bioinformatics in Python, you really should be using SciPy anyway.
EDIT: Darius Bacon timed my code and found it slower. So I timed my code and... yes, it is slower. The lesson for all: when you are trying to speed things up, don't guess, measure.
I am baffled as to why my attempt to put more work on the C internals of Python is slower. I tried it for lists of length 1000 and it was still slower.
I can't spend any more time on trying to hack the Python cleverly. If you need more speed, I suggest you try SciPy.
EDIT: I just tested by hand, without timeit. I find that for short a and b, the old code is faster; for long a and b, the new code is faster; in both cases the difference is not large. (I'm now wondering if I can trust timeit on my Windows computer; I want to try this test again on Linux.) I wouldn't change working code to try to get it faster. And one more time I urge you to try SciPy. :-)
Using the C code inside of SciPy wins big for long input arrays. Using simple and direct Python wins for short input arrays; Darius Bacon's
izip()
-based code benchmarked out best. Thus, the ultimate solution is to decide which one to use at runtime, based on the length of the input arrays:I made a test harness that tested the functions with different length inputs, and found that around length 200 the SciPy function started to win. The bigger the input arrays, the bigger it wins. For very short length arrays, say length 3, the simpler code wins. This function adds a tiny amount of overhead to decide which way to do it, then does it the best way.
In case you are interested, here is the test harness:
No need to take
abs()
ofa[i]
andb[i]
if you're squaring it.Store
a[i]
andb[i]
in temporary variables, to avoid doing the indexing more than once. Maybe the compiler can optimize this, but maybe not.Check into the
**2
operator. Is it simplifying it into a multiply, or is it using a general power function (log - multiply by 2 - antilog).Don't do sqrt twice (though the cost of that is small). Do
sqrt(denoma * denomb)
.(I originally thought) you're not going to speed it up a lot without breaking out to C (like numpy or scipy) or changing what you compute. But here's how I'd try that, anyway:
It's roughly twice as fast in Python 2.6 with 500k-element arrays. (After changing map to imap, following Jarret Hardie.)
Here's a tweaked version of the original poster's revised code:
It's ugly, but it does come out faster. . .
Edit: And try Psyco! It speeds up the final version by another factor of 4. How could I forget?
This is faster for arrays of around 1000+ elements.
Similar to Darius Bacon's answer, I've been toying with operator and itertools to produce a faster answer. The following seems to be 1/3 faster on a 500-item array according to timeit: