Home/ Questions/Q 9221969
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-18T03:42:13+00:00

I am trying to determine when to use the parallel package to speed up

  • 0

I am trying to determine when to use the parallel package to speed up the time necessary to run some analysis. One of the things I need to do is create matrices comparing variables in two data frames with differing number of rows. I asked a question as to an efficient way of doing on StackOverflow and wrote about tests on my blog. Since I am comfortable with the best approach I wanted to speed up the process by running it in parallel. The results below are based upon a 2ghz i7 Mac with 8gb of RAM. I am surprised that the parallel package, the parSapply funciton in particular, is worse than just using the apply function. The code to replicate this is below. Note that I am currently only using one of the two columns I create but eventually want to use both.

Execution Time
(source: bryer.org) 

require(parallel)
require(ggplot2)
require(reshape2)
set.seed(2112)
results <- list()
sizes <- seq(1000, 30000, by=5000)
pb <- txtProgressBar(min=0, max=length(sizes), style=3)
for(cnt in 1:length(sizes)) {
    i <- sizes[cnt]
    df1 <- data.frame(row.names=1:i, 
                      var1=sample(c(TRUE,FALSE), i, replace=TRUE), 
                      var2=sample(1:10, i, replace=TRUE) )
    df2 <- data.frame(row.names=(i + 1):(i + i), 
                      var1=sample(c(TRUE,FALSE), i, replace=TRUE),
                      var2=sample(1:10, i, replace=TRUE))
    tm1 <- system.time({
        df6 <- sapply(df2$var1, FUN=function(x) { x == df1$var1 })
        dimnames(df6) <- list(row.names(df1), row.names(df2))
    })
    rm(df6)
    tm2 <- system.time({
        cl <- makeCluster(getOption('cl.cores', detectCores()))
        tm3 <- system.time({
            df7 <- parSapply(cl, df1$var1, FUN=function(x, df2) { x == df2$var1 }, df2=df2)
            dimnames(df7) <- list(row.names(df1), row.names(df2))
        })
        stopCluster(cl)
    })
    rm(df7)
    results[[cnt]] <- c(apply=tm1, parallel.total=tm2, parallel.exec=tm3)
    setTxtProgressBar(pb, cnt)
}

toplot <- as.data.frame(results)[,c('apply.user.self','parallel.total.user.self',
                          'parallel.exec.user.self')]
toplot$size <- sizes
toplot <- melt(toplot, id='size')

ggplot(toplot, aes(x=size, y=value, colour=variable)) + geom_line() + 
    xlab('Vector Size') + ylab('Time (seconds)')
Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Running jobs in parallel incurs overhead. Only if the jobs you fire at the worker nodes take a significant amount of time does parallelization improve overall performance. When the individual jobs take only milliseconds, the overhead of constantly firing off jobs will deteriorate overall performance. The trick is to divide the work over the nodes in such a way that the jobs are sufficiently long, say at least a few seconds. I used this to great effect running six Fortran models simultaneously, but these individual model runs took hours, almost negating the effect of overhead.

    Note that I haven’t run your example, but the situation I describe above is often the issue when parallization takes longer than running sequentially.

    • 0