Can we make a faster Boole implementation?

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.

list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
(*0.066533,Null*)

Compare that to Boole.

AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
l2===l3
(*0.262770,Null*)
(* True *)

It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.

boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
list=True,True,False,True,False;
boole[list]
(*True,True,False,True,False*)

Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.

list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
(*0.066533,Null*)

Compare that to Boole.

AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
l2===l3
(*0.262770,Null*)
(* True *)

It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.

boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
list=True,True,False,True,False;
boole[list]
(*True,True,False,True,False*)

Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.

list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
(*0.066533,Null*)

Compare that to Boole.

AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
l2===l3
(*0.262770,Null*)
(* True *)

It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.

boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
list=True,True,False,True,False;
boole[list]
(*True,True,False,True,False*)

Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

I just learned about Mr. Wizard's very efficient code here.

list=RandomChoice[True,False,10^6];
AbsoluteTiming[l2=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];]
(*0.066533,Null*)

Compare that to Boole.

AbsoluteTiming[l3=Boole[list];]
l2===l3
(*0.262770,Null*)
(* True *)

It seems we can make a faster Boole. I tried to use the code above to do that, but it doesn't work.

boole[list_]:=Developer`ToPackedArray@With[True=1,False=0,Evaluate@list];
list=True,True,False,True,False;
boole[list]
(*True,True,False,True,False*)

Why doesn't boole above work, and how can it be fixed?

performance-tuning function-construction core-language

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

edited 1 hour ago

Chris K

5,99221739

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

asked 2 hours ago

Ted Ersek

2,8441230

add a commentÂ |Â

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
1
down vote

The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:

TracePrint[boole[list], _With]

With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]

True, True, False, True, False

One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:

Clear[boole]
boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];

Then:

boole[list]

1, 1, 0, 1, 0

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
â€“Â Ted Ersek
1 hour ago

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:

boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

add a commentÂ |Â

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',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f184765%2fcan-we-make-a-faster-boole-implementation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
1
down vote

The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:

TracePrint[boole[list], _With]

With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]

True, True, False, True, False

One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:

Clear[boole]
boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];

Then:

boole[list]

1, 1, 0, 1, 0

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
â€“Â Ted Ersek
1 hour ago

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:

TracePrint[boole[list], _With]

With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]

True, True, False, True, False

One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:

Clear[boole]
boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];

Then:

boole[list]

1, 1, 0, 1, 0

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
â€“Â Ted Ersek
1 hour ago

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:

TracePrint[boole[list], _With]

With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]

True, True, False, True, False

One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:

Clear[boole]
boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];

Then:

boole[list]

1, 1, 0, 1, 0

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

The problem is the automatic module variable renaming that happens with With. You can use TracePrint to see this:

TracePrint[boole[list], _With]

With[True$=1,False$=0,True,True,False,True,False]

True, True, False, True, False

One idea to circumvent this renaming is to use a pure function:

Clear[boole]
boole = Function[Developer`ToPackedArray @ With[True = 1, False = 0, #]];

Then:

boole[list]

1, 1, 0, 1, 0

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

answered 2 hours ago

Carl Woll

62.7k281161

Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
â€“Â Ted Ersek
1 hour ago

add a commentÂ |Â

Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
â€“Â Ted Ersek
1 hour ago

Thank you. Wizard and Carl are both WL experts. I am using version 10. Is the With[True=1,False-0 ,...] trick faster than Boole in version 11.3 ?
â€“Â Ted Ersek
1 hour ago

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:

boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:

boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:

boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

See Using With to scope over pure functions, then try:

boole[list_] := With @@ Hold[True = 1, False = 0, list] // Developer`ToPackedArray

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

answered 10 mins ago

Mr.Wizardâ™¦

228k294671023

add a commentÂ |Â

draft saved

draft discarded

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Search This Blog

Iyfjky