Gadget io fewer calls to reading #2411
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jzuhone
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2020
brittonsmith
approved these changes
Jan 10, 2020
|
I believe these errors are unrelated, and that this is likely ready for merging. |
|
Should probably get one more set of eyeballs on it. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As mentioned in #2383, we can speed things up a fair bit by reading fewer times from disk. I tested this with both this terse form and the longer version of
x = c[:,0]etc and found them about the same.What was happening was that each time we read from the dataset via
__getitem__, we read from disk, and because we were striding it along a vector axis, we made it even worse. This formulation reads it once, then we grab views into that one read (post-casting) and use that. I get a fairly good speedup.I've got a few merge commits, so merge & squash or something would probably be best here, if this passes muster.