Ways to speed up user implemented RK4Speed up Numerical IntegrationSpeed of convergence for NIntegrateTough...
Is a roofing delivery truck likely to crack my driveway slab?
Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?
Was the picture area of a CRT a parallelogram (instead of a true rectangle)?
Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?
What would be the benefits of having both a state and local currencies?
How to prove that the query oracle is unitary?
Why are on-board computers allowed to change controls without notifying the pilots?
Tiptoe or tiphoof? Adjusting words to better fit fantasy races
Print name if parameter passed to function
How do I keep an essay about "feeling flat" from feeling flat?
voltage of sounds of mp3files
What's the purpose of "true" in bash "if sudo true; then"
Irreducibility of a simple polynomial
Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?
Do I need a multiple entry visa for a trip UK -> Sweden -> UK?
Your magic is very sketchy
Failed to fetch jessie backports repository
How could Frankenstein get the parts for his _second_ creature?
Is there any reason not to eat food that's been dropped on the surface of the moon?
Lay out the Carpet
What defines a dissertation?
Cynical novel that describes an America ruled by the media, arms manufacturers, and ethnic figureheads
Bash method for viewing beginning and end of file
What would happen if the UK refused to take part in EU Parliamentary elections?
Ways to speed up user implemented RK4
Speed up Numerical IntegrationSpeed of convergence for NIntegrateTough Calculation, novice mathematica userNumerical integration's speedNumerical integral speedImprove the speed of Gaussian quadrature integrationSolving an unstable BVP numerically, accurately and efficientlyHow to speed up integral of results of PDE modelSolve BVP involving user defined functionUser defined ArcTan function
$begingroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo
is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo
is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
AppendTo
is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRule
and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.
$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, usingJoin[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]
as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTable
anyways.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously changeTable
toDo
to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoin
as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThread
part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post andrk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo
is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
$endgroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo
is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
differential-equations numerical-integration
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
808
1
$begingroup$
AppendTo
is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRule
and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.
$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, usingJoin[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]
as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTable
anyways.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously changeTable
toDo
to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoin
as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThread
part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post andrk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
AppendTo
is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRule
and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.
$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, usingJoin[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]
as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTable
anyways.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously changeTable
toDo
to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoin
as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThread
part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post andrk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
AppendTo
is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not use Rule
and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
AppendTo
is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not use Rule
and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, using
Join[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]
as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use a Table
anyways.$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, using
Join[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]
as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use a Table
anyways.$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously change
Table
to Do
to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could use Join
as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed the MapThread
part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously change
Table
to Do
to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could use Join
as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed the MapThread
part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post and
rk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post and
rk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ
and given vectorfield F
, this creates a CompiledFunction
cStep
that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList
and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile
, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f194002%2fways-to-speed-up-user-implemented-rk4%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
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ
and given vectorfield F
, this creates a CompiledFunction
cStep
that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList
and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile
, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ
and given vectorfield F
, this creates a CompiledFunction
cStep
that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList
and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile
, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ
and given vectorfield F
, this creates a CompiledFunction
cStep
that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList
and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
$endgroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ
and given vectorfield F
, this creates a CompiledFunction
cStep
that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList
and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
57.9k579159
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile
, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile
, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around with
Compile
, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around with
Compile
, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f194002%2fways-to-speed-up-user-implemented-rk4%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
$begingroup$
AppendTo
is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRule
and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, using
Join[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]
as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTable
anyways.$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously change
Table
toDo
to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoin
as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThread
part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post and
rk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago