Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Implement optimizations for sparse findnext/findprev #28313

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Implement optimizations for sparse findnext/findprev #28313

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mbauman
Copy link
Member

@mbauman mbauman commented Jul 27, 2018 •
edited
Loading

These were basically lying around, unused. Just a few minor modifications were required to generalize them for any predicate function and update them to return CartesianIndexes.

Now that #26022 hashes more elements, this preserves the performance of the sparse case.

@mbauman
Implement optimizations for sparse findnext/findprev
dd0b395 
These were basically lying around, unused.  Just a few minor modifications were required to generalize them for any predicate function
@mbauman mbauman added the sparse Sparse arrays label Jul 27, 2018
@ararslan ararslan added the performance Must go faster label Jul 27, 2018
@KristofferC
Copy link
Member

Good to go?

@KristofferC
Copy link
Member

Bumpie

@KristofferC KristofferC reopened this Nov 13, 2018
@KristofferC
Copy link
Member

Will do some spot benchmarks here and if it looks good + CI will merge.

@mbauman
Copy link
Member Author

mbauman commented Nov 13, 2018

I realized that these functions I repurposed aren't entirely unused — they're intended to form the basis of an abstract interface for sparse arrays. I can just add these definitions instead of replacing _sparse_find*, but ideally we should probably re-jigger things so that they're just built atop the real findnext API.

@tkluck
Copy link
Contributor

tkluck commented Nov 14, 2018 •
edited
Loading

For reference, this was originally this pull request. I don't know what happened in the mean time to make it appear "almost unused".

@mbauman
Copy link
Member Author

mbauman commented Nov 15, 2018

Nothing happened, I just had initially searched the sparsematrix.jl file for any call sites and didn't find any. I missed the abstractsparse definitions.

@StefanKarpinski StefanKarpinski added triage This should be discussed on a triage call backport 1.0 labels Jan 31, 2019
@KristofferC KristofferC removed backport 1.0 triage This should be discussed on a triage call labels Jan 31, 2019
@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member

Closing with #31354

@ViralBShah ViralBShah closed this Apr 3, 2019
@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member

@KlausC Just bringing this PR to your attention.

@mbauman mbauman deleted the mb/sparsefinders branch April 3, 2019 14:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
performance Must go faster sparse Sparse arrays
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@mbauman @KristofferC @tkluck @ViralBShah @StefanKarpinski @ararslan