I am wondering whether there is a cpp equivalent to accessing array locations in fortran via indexes stored in other arrays
I am novice to cpp but experienced in oop fortran. I am thinking about leaving fortran behind for the much better support of oop in recent cpp (oop in fortran is probably at the stage of year 2000 cpp).
However, my applications are heavily geared towards linear algebra. Contrarily to cpp, fortran has a lot of compiler built in support for this. But I would happily load libraries in cpp for gaining elaborate oop support.
But if the below construct is missing in cpp that would be really annoying.
As I haven't found anything related yet I would appreciate if some experienced cpp programmer could comment.
An assignment to a 1D array location in fortan using a cascade of vector subscripts can be a complex as this:
iv1(ivcr(val(i,j)))=1
where iv1 is a 1D integer vector, ivcr is a 1D integer vector, val is a 2D integer array and i and j are scalars. I am wondering whether I could write this in a similar compact form in cpp.
A only slightly more complex example would be:
iv1(ivcr(val(i:j,j)))=1
which will fill a section in iv1 with "1".
How would cpp deal with that problem in the shortest possible way.
Given (suitably initialized):
std::vector<int> iv1, ivcr;
std::vector<std::vector<int>> val;
Then your iv1(ivcr(val(i,j)))=1 is simply
iv1[ivcr[val[i][j]]] = 1;
As for iv1(ivcr(val(i:j,j)))=1, or just val(i:j, j), there is no inbuilt way to slice into arrays like this. To be able to assign 1 to these kinds of nested datastructure accesses, you would need datastructures that provide expression templates. The Eigen library has just that and is one of the major linear algebra libraries for C++. Check out their documentation for indexing and slicing here:
https://eigen.tuxfamily.org/dox-devel/group__TutorialSlicingIndexing.html
I have a (kind of) performance problem in my code, that roots in the chosen architecture.
I will use multidimensional tensors (basically matrices with more dimensions) in the form of cubes to store my data.
Since the dimension is not known at compile-time, I can't use Boost's MultidimensionalArray (IIRC), but have to come up, with my own solution.
Right now, I save each dimension, on it's own. I have a Tensor of dimension (let's say 3), that holds a lot of tensors of dimension 2 (in an std::vector), that each have a std::vector with tensors of dimension 1, that each holds a std::vector of (numerical) data. I use an abstract base-class for my tensor, so everything in there is a pointer to the abstract class, while beeing (secretly) multi- or one-dimensional.
I extract a single numerical data-point by giving a std::list of indices to a tensor, that get's the first element, searches for the according tensor and passes the rest of the list to that tensor in a (kind of) recursive call.
I now have to do a multi-dimensional Fast-Fourier Transformation on that data. I use a Threadpool and Job-Objects, that works on copying data from an Tensor along one dimension, doing an FFT and writes that data back.
I already have logic to implement ThreadPool and organize the dimensions to FFT along, but there is one problem:
My data-structure is the cache-unfriendliest beast, one can think of... While the Data-Copying along the first dimension (that, with it's data in a single 1D-Tensor) is reasonable fast, but in other directions, I need to copy my data from all over the place.
Since there are no race-conditions (I make sure every concurrent FFT is on distinct data-points), I thought, I would not use a Mutex-Guard to let everybody copy at the same time. However this heavily slows down the process ("I copy my data now!" - "No, I copy my data now!"- "But it's my turn now!"...)
Guarding the copy-Process with a mutex, does not increase speed. The FFT of a vector with 1024 elements is way faster, then the copy-process to get these elements, resulting in nearly all of my threads waiting, while one is copying.
Long story short:
Is there any kind of multi-dimensional data-structure, that does not need to set the dimension at compile-time, that allows me to traverse fast along all axis? I searched for a while now, by nothing came up besides Boost MultiArray. Vectorization also does not work since the indices would grow too fast to hold in usual int-types.
I can't think of how to present code-examples here, since most of that code is rather simple, but If needed, I can get that in.
Eigen has multi-dimensional tensor support (nominally unsupported, but written by the DeepMind people, so "somewhat" supported?), and FFTW has 1d to 3d FFTs. Using external libraries with a set of 1D to 3D FFTs would outsource most of the hard work.
Edit: Actually, FFTW has support for threaded n-dimensional FFTs
I'm new to C++ and I think a good way for me to jump in is to build some basic models that I've built in other languages. I want to start with just Linear Regression solved using first order methods. So here's how I want things to be organized (in pseudocode).
class LinearRegression
LinearRegression:
tol = <a supplied tolerance or defaulted to 1e-5>
max_ite = <a supplied max iter or default to 1k>
fit(X, y):
// model learns weights specific to this data set
_gradient(X, y):
// compute the gradient
score(X,y):
// model uses weights learned from fit to compute accuracy of
// y_predicted to actual y
My question is when I use fit, score and gradient methods I don't actually need to pass around the arrays (X and y) or even store them anywhere so I want to use a reference or a pointer to those structures. My problem is that if the method accepts a pointer to a 2D array I need to supply the second dimension size ahead of time or use templating. If I use templating I now have something like this for every method that accepts a 2D array
template<std::size_t rows, std::size_t cols>
void fit(double (&X)[rows][cols], double &y){...}
It seems there likely a better way. I want my regression class to work with any size input. How is this done in industry? I know in some situations the array is just flattened into row or column major format where just a pointer to the first element is passed but I don't have enough experience to know what people use in C++.
You wrote a quite a few points in your question, so here are some points addressing them:
Contemporary C++ discourages working directly with heap-allocated data that you need to manually allocate or deallocate. You can use, e.g., std::vector<double> to represent vectors, and std::vector<std::vector<double>> to represent matrices. Even better would be to use a matrix class, preferably one that is already in mainstream use.
Once you use such a class, you can easily get the dimension at runtime. With std::vector, for example, you can use the size() method. Other classes have other methods. Check the documentation for the one you choose.
You probably really don't want to use templates for the dimensions.
a. If you do so, you will need to recompile each time you get a different input. Your code will be duplicated (by the compiler) to the number of different dimensions you simultaneously use. Lots of bad stuff, with little gain (in this case). There's no real drawback to getting the dimension at runtime from the class.
b. Templates (in your setting) are fitting for the type of the matrix (e.g., is it a matrix of doubles or floats), or possibly the number of dimesions (e.g., for specifying tensors).
Your regressor doesn't need to store the matrix and/or vector. Pass them by const reference. Your interface looks like that of sklearn. If you like, check the source code there. The result of calling fit just causes the class object to store the parameter corresponding to the prediction vector β. It doesn't copy or store the input matrix and/or vector.
I remember c++ primer said that 2d vector is very inefficient and should be avoided.
but 2d array seems to be rather inconvenient in terms of both creating and deleting.
is there any other way to do it? or 2d vector still competable against 2d array?
I doubt that it matters. There are other factors that will matter more.
I would question the starting premise:
2d vector is inefficient
Sometimes we trade off pure speed for better abstraction. I'll bet the std::string class can be considered inefficient by some measures when compared to raw byte or character array, but I'd still use it.
You'll have a better case if you stop worrying about broad statements and focus on your use case.
The most common application of 2D arrays I know of is for vectors, matricies, and linear algebra. There are other factors for that problem that will be far more important than the choice of underlying data structure.
Since C++ is an object-oriented language, you can solve this easily by starting with an interface and creating implementations that use vector and array. Test them against a meaningful data set and measure.
This is my little big question about containers, in particular, arrays.
I am writing a physics code that mainly manipulates a big (> 1 000 000) set of "particles" (with 6 double coordinates each). I am looking for the best way (in term of performance) to implement a class that will contain a container for these data and that will provide manipulation primitives for these data (e.g. instantiation, operator[], etc.).
There are a few restrictions on how this set is used:
its size is read from a configuration file and won't change during execution
it can be viewed as a big two dimensional array of N (e.g. 1 000 000) lines and 6 columns (each one storing the coordinate in one dimension)
the array is manipulated in a big loop, each "particle / line" is accessed and computation takes place with its coordinates, and the results are stored back for this particle, and so on for each particle, and so on for each iteration of the big loop.
no new elements are added or deleted during the execution
First conclusion, as the access on the elements is essentially done by accessing each element one by one with [], I think that I should use a normal dynamic array.
I have explored a few things, and I would like to have your opinion on the one that can give me the best performances.
As I understand there is no advantage to use a dynamically allocated array instead of a std::vector, so things like double** array2d = new ..., loop of new, etc are ruled out.
So is it a good idea to use std::vector<double> ?
If I use a std::vector, should I create a two dimensional array like std::vector<std::vector<double> > my_array that can be indexed like my_array[i][j], or is it a bad idea and it would be better to use std::vector<double> other_array and acces it with other_array[6*i+j].
Maybe this can gives better performance, especially as the number of columns is fixed and known from the beginning.
If you think that this is the best option, would it be possible to wrap this vector in a way that it can be accessed with a index operator defined as other_array[i,j] // same as other_array[6*i+j] without overhead (like function call at each access) ?
Another option, the one that I am using so far is to use Blitz, in particular blitz::Array:
typedef blitz::Array<double,TWO_DIMENSIONS> store_t;
store_t my_store;
Where my elements are accessed like that: my_store(line, column);.
I think there are not much advantage to use Blitz in my case because I am accessing each element one by one and that Blitz would be interesting if I was using operations directly on array (like matrix multiplication) which I am not.
Do you think that Blitz is OK, or is it useless in my case ?
These are the possibilities I have considered so far, but maybe the best one I still another one, so don't hesitate to suggest me other things.
Thanks a lot for your help on this problem !
Edit:
From the very interesting answers and comments bellow a good solution seems to be the following:
Use a structure particle (containing 6 doubles) or a static array of 6 doubles (this avoid the use of two dimensional dynamic arrays)
Use a vector or a deque of this particle structure or array. It is then good to traverse them with iterators, and that will allow to change from one to another later.
In addition I can also use a Blitz::TinyVector<double,6> instead of a structure.
So is it a good idea to use std::vector<double> ?
Usually, a std::vector should be the first choice of container. You could use either std::vector<>::reserve() or std::vector<>::resize() to avoid reallocations while populating the vector. Whether any other container is better can be found by measuring. And only by measuring. But first measure whether anything the container is involved in (populating, accessing elements) is worth optimizing at all.
If I use a std::vector, should I create a two dimensional array like std::vector<std::vector<double> > [...]?
No. IIUC, you are accessing your data per particle, not per row. If that's the case, why not use a std::vector<particle>, where particle is a struct holding six values? And even if I understood incorrectly, you should rather write a two-dimensional wrapper around a one-dimensional container. Then align your data either in rows or columns - what ever is faster with your access patterns.
Do you think that Blitz is OK, or is it useless in my case?
I have no practical knowledge about blitz++ and the areas it is used in. But isn't blitz++ all about expression templates to unroll loop operations and optimizing away temporaries when doing matrix manipulations? ICBWT.
First of all, you don't want to scatter the coordinates of one given particle all over the place, so I would begin by writing a simple struct:
struct Particle { /* coords */ };
Then we can make a simple one dimensional array of these Particles.
I would probably use a deque, because that's the default container, but you may wish to try a vector, it's just that 1.000.000 of particles means about a single chunk of a few MBs. It should hold but it might strain your system if this ever grows, while the deque will allocate several chunks.
WARNING:
As Alexandre C remarked, if you go the deque road, refrain from using operator[] and prefer to use iteration style. If you really need random access and it's performance sensitive, the vector should prove faster.
The first rule when choosing from containers is to use std::vector. Then, only after your code is complete and you can actually measure performance, you can try other containers. But stick to vector first. (And use reserve() from the start)
Then, you shouldn't use an std::vector<std::vector<double> >. You know the size of your data: it's 6 doubles. No need for it to be dynamic. It is constant and fixed. You can define a struct to hold you particle members (the six doubles), or you can simply typedef it: typedef double particle[6]. Then, use a vector of particles: std::vector<particle>.
Furthermore, as your program uses the particle data contained in the vector sequentially, you will take advantage of the modern CPU cache read-ahead feature at its best performance.
You could go several ways. But in your case, don't declare astd::vector<std::vector<double> >. You're allocating a vector (and you copy it around) for every 6 doubles. Thats way too costly.
If you think that this is the best option, would it be possible to wrap this vector in a way that it can be accessed with a index operator defined as other_array[i,j] // same as other_array[6*i+j] without overhead (like function call at each access) ?
(other_array[i,j] won't work too well, as i,j employs the comma operator to evaluate the value of "i", then discards that and evaluates and returns "j", so it's equivalent to other_array[i]).
You will need to use one of:
other_array[i][j]
other_array(i, j) // if other_array implements operator()(int, int),
// but std::vector<> et al don't.
other_array[i].identifier // identifier is a member variable
other_array[i].identifier() // member function getting value
other_array[i].identifier(double) // member function setting value
You may or may not prefer to put get_ and set_ or similar on the last two functions should you find them useful, but from your question I think you won't: functions are prefered in APIs between parts of large systems involving many developers, or when the data items may vary and you want the algorithms working on the data to be independent thereof.
So, a good test: if you find yourself writing code like other_array[i][3] where you've decided "3" is the double with the speed in it, and other_array[i][5] because "5" is the the acceleration, then stop doing that and give them proper identifiers so you can say other_array[i].speed and .acceleration. Then other developers can read and understand it, and you're much less likely to make accidental mistakes. On the other hand, if you are iterating over those 6 elements doing exactly the same things to each, then you probably do want Particle to hold a double[6], or to provide an operator[](int). There's no problem doing both:
struct Particle
{
double x[6];
double& speed() { return x[3]; }
double speed() const { return x[3]; }
double& acceleration() { return x[5]; }
...
};
BTW / the reason that vector<vector<double> > may be too costly is that each set of 6 doubles will be allocated on the heap, and for fast allocation and deallocation many heap implementations use fixed-size buckets, so your small request will be rounded up t the next size: that may be a significant overhead. The outside vector will also need to record a extra pointer to that memory. Further, heap allocation and deallocation is relatively slow - in you're case, you'd only be doing it at startup and shutdown, but there's no particular point in making your program slower for no reason. Even more importantly, the areas on the heap may just around in memory, so your operator[] may have cache-faults pulling in more distinct memory pages than necessary, slowing the entire program. Put another way, vectors store elements contiguously, but the pointed-to-vectors may not be contiguous.