On Sunday 27 September 2009 22:58:59 David McClain wrote: > On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > where the "kthSmallest" and "Array2D.parallelInit" functions are both > > polymorphic. The former handles implicit sequences of any comparable > > type and > > the latter handles 2D arrays of any element type. This use of > > polymorphic > > But facing a situation with 2^26 pixels to process, I would never do > that.
Here is a better one-line F# solution: images |> Array2D.map (fun xs -> Array.sortInPlaceWith compare xs; xs.[m/2]) This solves your problem from the REPL in 0.34s. Moreover, you can easily parallelize it in F#: Parallel.For(0, n, fun y -> for x=0 to n-1 do Array.sortInPlaceWith compare images.[y, x]) images |> Array2D.map (fun xs -> xs.[m/2]) On this 8-core box, the time taken is reduced to 0.039s (finally a superlinear speedup on my Intel box, yay!). Here is the OCaml equivalent: Array.map (Array.map (fun gs -> Array.sort compare gs; gs.(m/2))) images This solves your problem non-interactively in 32s, which is 821x slower than F#. This huge performance discrepancy is a direct result of the elegant solution using polymorphic functions. HLVM's solution to polymorphism solves this problem, offering polymorphism with no performance degradation whatsoever. > I would write a type-specific function to apply. Why waste your time doing by hand what the compiler can do for you? > Why dispatch of every pixel of the aggregate, when I could dispatch once at > the top, to decide what kind of homogeneous array... Why dispatch at all when a JIT compiler would already know all of the types involved and could partially specialize your code for them? FWIW, a completed HLVM would solve this problem extremely efficiently despite having a naive garbage collector because the entire program only does a single allocation. This is not at all uncommon in technical computing and is exactly the characteristic I was referring to: these solutions leverage features of the OCaml language like higher-order functions, currying and partial application but they have completely different performance requirements to those of Coq. In the context of technical computing, the benefits of shared-memory parallelism far outweigh those of efficient single-threaded allocation and collection of small values. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs