I am running a code which is diagonalizing very large matrices, hence I need to reach the best possible performance. when scanning a vector I was using the following syntax
for i in 1:length(vec)
which works fine. However, I am recently receiving the following warning
Indexing with indices obtained from
length,sizeetc is discouraged. Useeachindexoraxesinstead.
Is it just a good practice? or the performance is also affected?
It is best practice. I am not sure if it improves performance, but it is conceivable. It will certainly not harm it.
At any rate, it is strongly recommended, and will improve the safety and generality of your code.
thank you
Using eachindex ensures that your code can work with arrays that do not necessarily start with index 1. These types of arrays can be created using OffsetArrays.jl.
If youâre diagonalizing large matrices, odds are the diagonalization is the performance critical part, not the way you index into your vectors.
That said, Iâve been taught iteration is better than indexing (they are the same thing for normal arrays, but itâs a good habit):
for item in vec
Or, if you need a counter for some reason
for (i, item) in enumerate(vec)
Or
for (i, item) in pairs(vec)
if you want the indice in the vec with the item
I agree, but, more emphatically: enumerate is the wrong function, pairs is the right one, but people always forget it.
Edit: Ah, well, @gustaphe did say âcounterâ, which is alright. I just have a knee-jerk reaction to all the uses of enumerate.
eachindex usually improves performance anyways because it uses cartesian directly.
Yeah, I see it the other way, I normally either need the indices or just the items, if I need something together with the items itâs probably a counter.
(Plus, pairs is so obscure a name I didnât dare recommending it without double checking)
Oh, that is very different from my experience. I think itâs probably 80-20 that I need pairs.
Yeah, thatâs what I think is a bit sad. Particularly because I very often see enumerate being used to get indices in the wild.
I would say (as a mnemotechnic) that pairs is for pairs of (key, value) , here (index,value), while, clearly, enumerate goes from one to the end, so is for a counter.
By the way, for enumerate it is easy to test for the first iteration ( i == 1), but how to test with last iteration ? ( does ( i == end) works? I do not see how it could). Possibly it is no a real worry, because less frequently interesting that test for first iter, but it arises sometime nevertheless.
On the other side with pairs you can do ( i == firstindex(v) ) and ( i == lastindex(v) ), even if it is somewhat verbose?
Comment or suggestions welcome.
If vec is meant to a traditional (1-indexed) vector, then the âgeneralityâ argument should be weighed against the simplicity/portability of length().
I believe this trade-off is a bit different for package developers and end-users (especially newcomers to Julia).
Not sure I understand. Is 1:length() more portable?
As for simplicity, eachindex() is simpler than 1:length(), but perhaps less familiar to newcomers. But, once youâve heard of it, you know it.
Is
1:length()more portable?
Well, in the sense that it looks pretty similar to what you would do in some of Juliaâs competitors.
Absolutely, but there are plenty of reasonable things pairs(vec) could have meant. I donât know what I would have wanted it to be called, I just know that I never feel entire certain what pairs does (or more likely what itâs called).
i == length(vec) && return
Thatâs a feature. Less risk of off-by-one if youâre translating from eachindex than from 1:length.
eachindex is fine and even for (i, item) in enumerate(vec) is something that most of us can handle (although it isnât pretty).
The real problem starts when dealing with matrices (and more). Things like for t = 4:T;i =2:N;x[t,i] = x[t-3,i-1];... are very easy in traditional notation, but become rather involved when you want to handle OffsetArrays (and what not). I believe this might become a serious hurdle in trying to attract new users.
Thanks all for the discussion!
for c in CartesianIndices(M)
?
btw, enumerate doesnât work with OffsetArray because i starts at 1
in this case, perhaps this: