On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Ian Butterworth <i.r.butterwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think so.. It happens on repeat function runs. I also updated to use > benchmarktools.jl > Even though, it takes so long (> 10 mins) on 0.5.0 I've only been patient > enough for it to complete once...
As mentioned in the issue (https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/19174#issuecomment-257456875) I only tested on master since you said it happens there too. The PR that probably fixed it was merged 7 days ago so you might want to try a newer nightly. You can also try to apply the patch on the 0.5 branch yourself although supposedly 0.5.1 should be prepared last weekend. P.S. please cross link to the issue if you open one. > > > using BenchmarkTools > function testf(x) > r = squeeze(mean(x[:,:,1:80,:,:,56:800],(1,2,3,4,5)),(1,2,3,4,5)); > end > > x = rand(10,10,100,4,4,1000) #Dummy array > @benchmark testf(x) > > In 0.5.0 I get the following (with huge memory usage): > > BenchmarkTools.Trial: > samples: 1 > evals/sample: 1 > time tolerance: 5.00% > memory tolerance: 1.00% > memory estimate: 23.36 gb > allocs estimate: 1043200022 > minimum time: 177.94 s (1.34% GC) > median time: 177.94 s (1.34% GC) > mean time: 177.94 s (1.34% GC) > maximum time: 177.94 s (1.34% GC) > > In 0.4.7 I get: > > BenchmarkTools.Trial: > samples: 11 > evals/sample: 1 > time tolerance: 5.00% > memory tolerance: 1.00% > memory estimate: 727.55 mb > allocs estimate: 79 > minimum time: 425.82 ms (0.06% GC) > median time: 485.95 ms (11.31% GC) > mean time: 482.67 ms (10.37% GC) > maximum time: 503.27 ms (11.22% GC) > > > > > On Monday, 31 October 2016 19:07:28 UTC-4, Yichao Yu wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Ian Butterworth >> <i.r.but...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'm not sure of the etiquette, but I'm cross-posting this from >> > stackoverflow >> > as it seems like quite a significant issue... >> > >> > As an example: >> > >> > x = rand(10,10,100,4,4,1000) #Dummy array >> > >> > tic() >> > r = squeeze(mean(x[:,:,1:80,:,:,56:800],(1,2,3,4,5)),(1,2,3,4,5)) >> > toc() >> > >> > Julia 0.5.0 -> elapsed time: 176.357068283 seconds >> > >> > Julia 0.4.7 -> elapsed time: 1.19991952 seconds >> > >> > >> > >> > I know this isn't really good practice, and I'm looking into using >> > `view` >> > but it's quite a bit performance decrease, so I thought I'd raise it. >> > >> >> AFAICT it's all compilation time. >> >> > >> > >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40351485/why-is-indexing-a-large-matrix-170x-slower-slower-in-julia-0-5-0-than-0-4-7
