Code should execute sequentially if run in a Jupyter notebook

- See the set up page to install Jupyter, Python and all necessary libraries
- Please direct feedback to contact@quantecon.org or the discourse forum

# The Need for Speed¶

Contents

## Overview¶

Higher level languages such as Python are optimized for humans

This means that the programmer can leave many details to the runtime environment

- specifying variable types
- memory allocation/deallocation, etc.

One result is that, compared to low-level languages, Python is typically faster to write, less error prone and easier to debug

A downside is that Python is harder to optimize — that is, turn into fast machine code — than languages like C or Fortran

Indeed, the standard implementation of Python (called CPython) cannot match the speed of compiled languages such as C or Fortran

Does that mean that we should just switch to C or Fortran for everything?

The answer is no, no and one hundred times no (no matter what your peers might tell you)

High productivity languages should be chosen over high speed languages for the great majority of scientific computing tasks

This is because

- Of any given program, relatively few lines are ever going to be time-critical
- For those lines of code that
*are*time-critical, we can achieve almost C speeds with minor modifications

This lecture will walk you through some of the most popular options for implementing this last step

(A number of other useful options are mentioned below)

## Where are the Bottlenecks?¶

Let’s start by trying to understand why high level languages like Python are slower than compiled code

### Dynamic Typing¶

Consider this Python operation

```
a, b = 10, 10
a + b
```

```
20
```

Even for this simple operation, the Python interpreter has a fair bit of work to do

For example, in the statement a + b, the interpreter has to know which operation to invoke

If a and b are strings, then a + b requires string concatenation

```
a, b = 'foo', 'bar'
a + b
```

```
'foobar'
```

If a and b are lists, then a + b requires list concatenation

```
a, b = ['foo'], ['bar']
a + b
```

```
['foo', 'bar']
```

(We say that the operator `+`

is *overloaded* — its action depends on the
type of the objects on which it acts)

As a result, Python must check the type of the objects and then call the correct operation

This involves substantial overheads

#### Static Types¶

Compiled languages avoid these overheads with explicit, static types

For example, consider the following C code, which sums the integers from 1 to 10

```
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
int i;
int sum = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
sum = sum + i;
}
printf("sum = %d\n", sum);
return 0;
}
```

The variables `i`

and `sum`

are explicitly declared to be integers

Hence, the meaning of addition here is completely unambiguous

### Data Access¶

Another drag on speed for high level languages is data access

To illustrate, let’s consider the problem of summing some data — say, a collection of integers

#### Summing with Compiled Code¶

In C or Fortran, these integers would typically be stored in an array, which is a simple data structure for storing homogeneous data

Such an array is stored in a single contiguous block of memory

- In modern computers, memory addresses are allocated to each byte (one byte = 8 bits)
- For example, a 64 bit integer is stored in 8 bytes of memory
- An array of \(n\) such integers occupies \(8n\)
**consecutive**memory slots

Moreover, the compiler is made aware of the data type by the programmer

- In this case 64 bit integers

Hence, each successive data point can be accessed by shifting forward in memory space by a known and fixed amount

- In this case 8 bytes

#### Summing in Pure Python¶

Python tries to replicate these ideas to some degree

For example, in the standard Python implementation (CPython), list elements are placed in memory locations that are in a sense contiguous

However, these list elements are more like pointers to data rather than actual data

Hence, there is still overhead involved in accessing the data values themselves

This is a considerable drag on speed

In fact, it’s generally true that memory traffic is a major culprit when it comes to slow execution

Let’s look at some ways around these problems

## Vectorization¶

Vectorization is about sending batches of related operations to native machine code

- The machine code itself is typically compiled from carefully optimized C or Fortran

This can greatly accelerate many (but not all) numerical computations

### Operations on Arrays¶

Try executing the following in a Jupyter notebook cell

First

```
import random
import numpy as np
```

Now try

```
%%timeit
n = 100000
sum = 0
for i in range(n):
x = random.uniform(0, 1)
sum += x**2
```

(Note how `%%`

in front of `timeit`

converts this line magic into a cell magic for the notebook)

Followed by

```
%%timeit
n = 100000
x = np.random.uniform(0, 1, n)
np.sum(x**2)
```

You should find that the second code block — which achieves the same thing as the first — runs one to two orders of magnitude faster

The reason is that in the second implementation we have broken the loop down into three basic operations

- draw n uniforms
- square them
- sum them

These are sent as batch operators to optimized machine code

Apart from minor overheads associated with sending data back and forth, the result is C- or Fortran-like speed

When we run batch operations on arrays like this, we say that the code is *vectorized*

Although there are exceptions, vectorized code is typically fast and efficient

It is also surprisingly flexible, in the sense that many operations can be vectorized

The next section illustrates this point

### Universal Functions¶

Many functions provided by NumPy are so-called *universal functions* — also called *ufuncs*

This means that they

- map scalars into scalars, as expected
- map arrays into arrays, acting element-wise

For example, `np.cos`

is a ufunc:

```
import numpy as np
np.cos(1.0)
```

```
0.54030230586813977
```

```
np.cos(np.linspace(0, 1, 3))
```

```
array([ 1., 0.87758256, 0.54030231])
```

By exploiting ufuncs, many operations can be vectorized

For example, consider the problem of maximizing a function \(f\) of two variables \((x,y)\) over the square \([-a, a] \times [-a, a]\)

For \(f\) and \(a\) let’s choose

Here’s a plot of \(f\)

To maximize it, we’re going to use a naive grid search:

- Evaluate \(f\) for all \((x,y)\) in a grid on the square
- Return the maximum of observed values

Here’s a non-vectorized version that uses Python loops

```
import numpy as np
def f(x, y):
return np.cos(x**2 + y**2) / (1 + x**2 + y**2)
grid = np.linspace(-3, 3, 1000)
m = -np.inf
for x in grid:
for y in grid:
z = f(x, y)
if z > m:
m = z
print(m)
```

And here’s a vectorized version

```
import numpy as np
def f(x, y):
return np.cos(x**2 + y**2) / (1 + x**2 + y**2)
grid = np.linspace(-3, 3, 1000)
x, y = np.meshgrid(grid, grid)
print(np.max(f(x, y)))
```

In the vectorized version, all the looping takes place in compiled code

If you add `%%timeit`

to the top of these code snippets and run them in a
notebook cell, you’ll see that the second version is much faster — about two
orders of magnitude

### Pros and Cons of Vectorization¶

At its best, vectorization yields fast, simple code

However, it’s not without disadvantages

One issue is that it can be highly memory intensive

For example, the vectorized maximization routine above is far more memory intensive than the non-vectorized version that preceded it

Another issue is that not all algorithms can be vectorized

In these kinds of settings, we need to go back to loops

Fortunately, there are very nice ways to speed up Python loops

## Numba¶

One of the most exciting developments in recent years in terms of scientific Python is Numba

Numba aims to automatically compile functions to native machine code instructions on the fly

The process isn’t flawless, since Numba needs to infer type information on all variables to generate pure machine instructions

Such inference isn’t possible in every setting

But for simple routines Numba infers types very well

Moreover, the “hot loops” at the heart of our code that we need to speed up are often such simple routines

### Prerequisites¶

If you followed our set up instructions and installed Anaconda, then you’ll be ready to use Numba

If not, try `import numba`

- If you get no complaints then you should be good to go
- If you do experience problems here or below then consider installing Anaconda

If you do have Anaconda installed, now might be a good time to run `conda update numba`

from a system terminal

### An Example¶

Let’s consider some problems that are difficult to vectorize

One is generating the trajectory of a difference equation given an initial condition

Let’s take the difference equation to be the quadratic map

Here’s the plot of a typical trajectory, starting from \(x_0 = 0.1\), with \(t\) on the x-axis

Before starting, let’s do some imports

```
from numba import jit
import numpy as np
```

Now, here’s a function to generate a trajectory of a given length from a given initial condition

```
def qm(x0, n):
x = np.empty(n+1)
x[0] = x0
for t in range(n):
x[t+1] = 4 * x[t] * (1 - x[t])
return x
```

To speed this up using Numba is trivial

```
qm_numba = jit(qm) # qm_numba is now a 'compiled' version of qm
```

Let’s time and compare identical function calls across these two versions:

```
%timeit qm(0.1, int(10**5))
```

```
10 loops, best of 3: 65.7 ms per loop
```

```
%timeit qm_numba(0.1, int(10**5))
```

```
The slowest run took 434.34 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached
1000 loops, best of 3: 260 µs per loop
```

Note the warning: The first execution is slower because of JIT compilation (see below)

Next time we get no such message

```
%timeit qm_numba(0.1, int(10**5))
```

```
1000 loops, best of 3: 259 µs per loop
```

```
65.7 * 1000 / 260 # Calculate speed gain
```

```
252.69230769230768
```

We have produced a speed increase of two orders of magnitude

Your mileage will of course vary depending on hardware and so on

Nonetheless, two orders of magnitude is huge relative to how simple and clear the implementation is

#### Decorator Notation¶

If you don’t need a separate name for the “numbafied” version of `qm`

, you can just put `@jit`

before the function

```
@jit
def qm(x0, n):
x = np.empty(n+1)
x[0] = x0
for t in range(n):
x[t+1] = 4 * x[t] * (1 - x[t])
return x
```

This is equivalent to `qm = jit(qm)`

### How and When it Works¶

Numba attempts to generate fast machine code using the infrastructure provided by the LLVM Project

It does this by inferring type information on the fly

As you can imagine, this is easier for simple Python objects (simple scalar data types, such as floats, integers, etc.)

Numba also plays well with NumPy arrays, which it treats as typed memory regions

In an ideal setting, Numba can infer all necessary type information

This allows it to generate native machine code, without having to call the Python runtime environment

In such a setting, Numba will be on par with machine code from low level languages

When Numba cannot infer all type information, some Python objects are given generic `object`

status, and some code is generated using the Python runtime

In this second setting, Numba typically provides only minor speed gains — or none at all

Hence, it’s prudent when using Numba to focus on speeding up small, time-critical snippets of code

This will give you much better performance than blanketing your Python programs with `@jit`

statements

## Cython¶

Like Numba, Cython provides an approach to generating fast compiled code that can be used from Python

As was the case with Numba, a key problem is the fact that Python is dynamically typed

As you’ll recall, Numba solves this problem (where possible) by inferring type

Cython’s approach is different — programmers add type definitions directly to their “Python” code

As such, the Cython language can be thought of as Python with type definitions

In addition to a language specification, Cython is also a language translator, transforming Cython code into optimized C and C++ code

Cython also takes care of building language extentions — the wrapper code that interfaces between the resulting compiled code and Python

**Important Note:**

In what follows we typically execute code in a Jupyter notebook

This is to take advantage of a Cython cell magic that makes Cython particularly easy to use

Some modifications are required to run the code outside a notebook

- See the book Cython by Kurt Smith or the online documentation

### A First Example¶

Let’s start with a rather artificial example

Suppose that we want to compute the sum \(\sum_{i=0}^n \alpha^i\) for given \(\alpha, n\)

Suppose further that we’ve forgotten the basic formula

for a geometric progression and hence have resolved to rely on a loop

#### Python vs C¶

Here’s a pure Python function that does the job

```
def geo_prog(alpha, n):
current = 1.0
sum = current
for i in range(n):
current = current * alpha
sum = sum + current
return sum
```

This works fine but for large \(n\) it is slow

Here’s a C function that will do the same thing

```
double geo_prog(double alpha, int n) {
double current = 1.0;
double sum = current;
int i;
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
current = current * alpha;
sum = sum + current;
}
return sum;
}
```

If you’re not familiar with C, the main thing you should take notice of is the type definitions

`int`

means integer`double`

means double precision floating point number- the
`double`

in`double geo_prog(...`

indicates that the function will return a double

Not surprisingly, the C code is faster than the Python code

#### A Cython Implementation¶

Cython implementations look like a convex combination of Python and C

We’re going to run our Cython code in the Jupyter notebook, so we’ll start by loading the Cython extension in a notebook cell

```
%load_ext Cython
```

In the next cell, we execute the following

```
%%cython
def geo_prog_cython(double alpha, int n):
cdef double current = 1.0
cdef double sum = current
cdef int i
for i in range(n):
current = current * alpha
sum = sum + current
return sum
```

Here `cdef`

is a Cython keyword indicating a variable declaration, and is followed by a type

The `%%cython`

line at the top is not actually Cython code — it’s an Jupyter cell magic indicating the start of Cython code

After executing the cell, you can now call the function `geo_prog_cython`

from within Python

What you are in fact calling is compiled C code with a Python call interface

```
%timeit geo_prog(0.99, int(10**6))
```

```
10 loops, best of 3: 101 ms per loop
```

```
%timeit geo_prog_cython(0.99, int(10**6))
```

```
10 loops, best of 3: 34.4 ms per loop
```

### Example 2: Cython with NumPy Arrays¶

Let’s go back to the first problem that we worked with: generating the iterates of the quadratic map

The problem of computing iterates and returning a time series requires us to work with arrays

The natural array type to work with is NumPy arrays

Here’s a Cython implemention that initializes, populates and returns a NumPy array

```
%%cython
import numpy as np
def qm_cython_first_pass(double x0, int n):
cdef int t
x = np.zeros(n+1, float)
x[0] = x0
for t in range(n):
x[t+1] = 4.0 * x[t] * (1 - x[t])
return np.asarray(x)
```

If you run this code and time it, you will see that it’s performance is disappointing — nothing like the speed gain we got from Numba

```
%timeit qm_cython_first_pass(0.1, int(10**5))
```

```
10 loops, best of 3: 32.9 ms per loop
```

```
%timeit qm_numba(0.1, int(10**5))
```

```
1000 loops, best of 3: 259 µs per loop
```

The reason is that working with NumPy arrays incurs substantial Python overheads

We can do better by using Cython’s typed memoryviews, which provide more direct access to arrays in memory

When using them, the first step is to create a NumPy array

Next, we declare a memoryview and bind it to the NumPy array

Here’s an example:

```
%%cython
import numpy as np
from numpy cimport float_t
def qm_cython(double x0, int n):
cdef int t
x_np_array = np.zeros(n+1, dtype=float)
cdef float_t [:] x = x_np_array
x[0] = x0
for t in range(n):
x[t+1] = 4.0 * x[t] * (1 - x[t])
return np.asarray(x)
```

Here

`cimport`

pulls in some compile-time information from NumPy`cdef float_t [:] x = x_np_array`

creates a memoryview on the NumPy array`x_np_array`

- the return statement uses
`np.asarray(x)`

to convert the memoryview back to a NumPy array

Let’s time it:

```
%timeit qm_cython(0.1, int(10**5))
```

```
1000 loops, best of 3: 452 µs per loop
```

This is pretty good, although not quite as fast as `qm_numba`

### Summary¶

Cython requires more expertise than Numba, and is a little more fiddly in terms of getting good performance

In fact, it’s surprising how difficult it is to beat the speed improvements provided by Numba

Nonetheless,

- Cython is a very mature, stable and widely used tool
- Cython can be more useful than Numba when working with larger, more sophisticated applications

## Caching¶

Perhaps, like us, you sometimes run a long computation that simulates a model at a given set of parameters — to generate a figure, say, or a table

20 minutes later you realize that you want to tweak the figure and now you have to do it all again

What caching will do is automatically store results at each parameterization

Ideally, results are compressed and stored on file, and automatically served back up to you when you repeat the calculation

This is a more traditional and generic way to speed up code that can nonetheless be very useful for economic modeling

### Joblib¶

Our caching will use the joblib library, which you need to install to run the code below

This can be done at a shell prompt by typing

```
pip install joblib
```

### An Example¶

Let’s look at a toy example, related to the quadratic map model discussed above

Let’s say we want to generate a long trajectory from a certain initial condition \(x_0\) and see what fraction of the sample is below 0.1

(We’ll omit JIT compilation or other speed ups for simplicity)

Here’s our code

```
import quantecon as qe
import numpy as np
from scipy.linalg import eigvals
from joblib import Memory
memory = Memory(cachedir='./joblib_cache')
@memory.cache
def qm(x0, n):
x = np.empty(n+1)
x[0] = x0
for t in range(n):
x[t+1] = 4 * x[t] * (1 - x[t])
return np.mean(x < 0.1)
qe.util.tic()
n = int(1e7)
print(qm(0.2, n))
qe.util.toc()
```

Notice the three lines

```
from joblib import Memory
memory = Memory(cachedir='./joblib_cache')
@memory.cache
```

We are using joblib to cache the result of calling qm at a given set of parameters

With the argument cachedir=’./joblib_cache’, any call to this function results in both the input values and output values being stored a subdirectory joblib_cache of the present working directory

(In UNIX shells, . refers to the present working directory)

Now, if we call the function twice with the same set of parameters, the result will be returned almost instantaneously

Here’s how it looks on our machine:

```
%run cache_example.py # First run
```

```
_____________________________________________________________
[Memory] Calling __main__--home-john-temp-cache_example.qm...
qm(0.2, 10000000)
_______________________________________________________________
qm - 9.9s, 0.2min
0.204758079524
TOC: Elapsed: 9.875596761703491 seconds.
```

```
%run cache_example.py # Second run
```

```
0.204758079524
TOC: Elapsed: 0.0009872913360595703 seconds.
```

## Other Options¶

There are in fact many other approaches to speeding up your Python code

We mention only a few of the most popular methods

### Interfacing with Fortran¶

If you are comfortable writing Fortran you will find it very easy to create extention modules from Fortran code using F2Py

F2Py is a Fortran-to-Python interface generator that is particularly simple to use

Robert Johansson provides a very nice introduction to F2Py, among other things

Recently, a Jupyter cell magic for Fortran has been developed — you might want to give it a try

### Parallel and Cloud Computing¶

This is a big topic that we won’t address in detail yet

However, you might find the following links a useful starting point

- IPython for parallel computing
- NumbaPro
- The Starcluster interface to Amazon’s EC2
- Anaconda Accelerate

## Exercises¶

### Exercise 1¶

Later we’ll learn all about finite state Markov chains

For now, let’s just concentrate on simulating a very simple example of such a chain

Suppose that the volatility of returns on an asset can be in one of two regimes — high or low

The transition probabilities across states are as follows

For example, let the period length be one month, and suppose the current state is high

We see from the graph that the state next month will be

- high with probability 0.8
- low with probability 0.2

Your task is to simulate a sequence of monthly volatility states according to this rule

Set the length of the sequence to `n = 100000`

and start in the high state

Implement a pure Python version, a Numba version and a Cython version, and compare speeds

To test your code, evaluate the fraction of time that the chain spends in the low state

If your code is correct, it should be about 2/3

## Solutions¶

### Exercise 1¶

Let’s start with some imports

```
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from numba import jit
```

We let

- 0 represent “low”
- 1 represent “high”

```
p, q = 0.1, 0.2 # Prob of leaving low and high state respectively
```

Here’s a pure Python version of the function

```
def compute_series(n):
x = np.empty(n, dtype=int)
x[0] = 1 # Start in state 1
U = np.random.uniform(0, 1, size=n)
for t in range(1, n):
current_x = x[t-1]
if current_x == 0:
x[t] = U[t] < p
else:
x[t] = U[t] > q
return x
```

Let’s run this code and check that the fraction of time spent in the low state is about 0.666

```
n = 100000
x = compute_series(n)
print(np.mean(x == 0)) # Fraction of time x is in state 0
```

```
0.66951
```

Now let’s time it

```
%timeit compute_series(n)
```

```
10 loops, best of 3: 45.6 ms per loop
```

Next let’s implement a Numba version, which is easy

```
compute_series_numba = jit(compute_series)
```

Let’s check we still get the right numbers

```
x = compute_series_numba(n)
print(np.mean(x == 0))
```

```
0.66764
```

Let’s see the time

```
%timeit compute_series_numba(n)
```

```
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.04 ms per loop
```

This is a nice speed improvement for one line of code

Now let’s implement a Cython version

```
%load_ext Cython
```

```
%%cython
import numpy as np
from numpy cimport int_t, float_t
def compute_series_cy(int n):
# == Create NumPy arrays first == #
x_np = np.empty(n, dtype=int)
U_np = np.random.uniform(0, 1, size=n)
# == Now create memoryviews of the arrays == #
cdef int_t [:] x = x_np
cdef float_t [:] U = U_np
# == Other variable declarations == #
cdef float p = 0.1
cdef float q = 0.2
cdef int t
# == Main loop == #
x[0] = 1
for t in range(1, n):
current_x = x[t-1]
if current_x == 0:
x[t] = U[t] < p
else:
x[t] = U[t] > q
return np.asarray(x)
```

```
compute_series_cy(10)
```

```
array([1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0])
```

```
x = compute_series_cy(n)
print(np.mean(x == 0))
```

```
0.66927
```

```
%timeit compute_series_cy(n)
```

```
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.57 ms per loop
```

The Cython implementation is fast, but not as fast as Numba