-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
feat: overwrite_partial_chunks #682
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
dodamih
wants to merge
4
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
dih_pad_writes_to_chunk
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't understand this optimization. It's true that
tobyteswill run very fast, but that's because the expensive part is getting done in asfortranarray. Secondly, asfortranarray doesn't do anything when it's already in fortran order so the if statement isn't necessary.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tested this and
asfortranarray+tobytesis much faster thantobytesfor C order arrays above a certain size (70% speedup for 64MB), and 50% speedup for non-contiguous slices. I forget if C order arrays can even make it this far without conversion, but non-contiguous slices definitely can. I will remove the if statement, but the performance benefit is there if you can accept the small memory cost of making a copy of the chunk - guessing thattobytesdoesn't bother making a contiguous copy.As a side note, what I really need is an option to skip the encoding and just keep the volume in memory because I'm spending nontrivial amount of time (20% of the entire task time) serialising / deserialising temporary volumes being written to
mem://, but I'm not sure how you feel about extending to just keeping raw arrays in memory. The nontrivial time being spent on encoding was why I was looking into the optimisation.