Use Python for Scientific Computing
November 1st, 2008 by Joey Bernard in
As computers become more and more powerful, scientific computing is becoming a more important part of fundamental research into how our world works. We can do more now than we could even imagine just a mere decade ago.
Most of this work has been done traditionally in more low-level languages, such as C or FORTRAN. Originally, this was done in order to maximize the efficiency of the code and to squeeze out every last bit of work from the computer. With computers now reaching multi-GHz speeds, this is no longer the bottleneck it once was. Other efficiencies come into play, with programmer efficiency being paramount. With this in mind, other languages are being considered that help make the most of a progammer's time and effort.
This article discusses one of these options: Python. Although Python is an interpreted language and suffers, unjustly, from the stigma that entails, it is growing in popularity among scientists for its clarity of style and the availability of many useful packages. The packages I look at in this article specifically are designed to provide fast, robust mathematical and scientific tools that can run nearly as fast as C or FORTRAN code.
The packages I focus on here are called numpy and scipy. They are both available from the main SciPy site (see Resources). But before we download them, what exactly are numpy and scipy?
numpy is a Python package that provides extended math capabilities. These include new data types, such as long integers of unlimited size and complex numbers. It also provides a new array data type that allows for the construction of vectors and matrices. All the basic operations that can be applied to these new data types also are included. With this we can get quite a bit of scientific work done already.
scipy is a further extension built on top of numpy. This package simplifies a lot of the more-common tasks that need to be handled, including tools such as those used to find the roots of polynomials, doing Fourier transformations, doing numerical integrals and enhanced I/O. With these functions, a user can develop very sophisticated scientific applications in relatively short order.
Now that we know what numpy and scipy are, how do we get them and start using them? Most distributions include both of these packages, making this the easy way to install them. Simply use your distribution's package manager to do the install. For example, in Ubuntu, you would type the following in a terminal window:
sudo apt-get install python-scipy
This installs scipy and all of its dependencies.
If you want to use the latest-and-greatest version and don't want to wait for your distribution to get updated, they are available through Subversion. Simply execute the following:
svn co http://svn.scipy.org/svn/numpy/trunk numpy svn co http://svn.scipy.org/svn/scipy/trunk scipy
Building and installing is handled by a setup.py script in the source directory. For most people, building and installing simply requires:
python setup.py build python setup.py install # done as root
If you don't have root access, or don't want to install into the system package directory, you can install into a different directory using:
python setup.py install --prefix=/path/to/install/dir
Other options also are available, which you can find out about by using:
python setup.py --help-commands
Take time to experiment and see whether you can use any of the extra options in your specific case.
Now that we have scipy and numpy installed, let's begin our tour by looking at some of the basic functions that are often used in scientific calculations. One of the most common tasks is matrix mathematics. This is greatly simplified when you use numpy. The most basic code to do a multiplication of two matrices using numpy would look like this:
import numpy a1=numpy.empty((500,500)) a2=numpy.empty((500,500)) a3=a1*a2
Contrast this to what we would need to write if we did it in C:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main() {
double a1[500][500];
double a2[500][500];
double a3[500][500];
int i, j, k;
for (i=0; i<500; i++) {
for (j=0; j<500; j++) {
a3[i][j] = 0;
for (k=0; k<500; k++) {
a3[i][j] += a1[i][k] * a2[k][j];
}
}
}
}
The Python code is much shorter and cleaner, and the intent of the code is much clearer. This kind of clarity in the code means that the programmer can focus much more on the algorithm rather than the gritty details of the implementation. There are C libraries, such as LAPACK, which help simplify this work in C. But, even these libraries can't match the simplicity of scipy.
“But what about efficiency?”, I hear you ask. Well, let's take a look at it with some timed runs. Taking our above example, we can put some calls around the actual matrix multiplication part and see how long each one takes. See Table 1 for the results.
Although your mileage will vary, because these times depend on your hardware and what other programs also are running on your machine, we can see a general trend. The Python code actually was about eight times faster than the C code compiled with no command-line options. That is actually quite surprising. Once we use the optimization command-line option, we see that the C code is now faster, by a factor of approximately 25. So, we can get faster code using optimized C, but we need to realize that multiplying two matrices with 250,000 elements each in one-quarter of a second is probably fast enough.
As well, we get a certain amount of protection when we use Python. What happens if we try to multiply two matrices where such multiplication doesn't make sense mathematically? When we try to multiply two matrices of different sizes, Python gives us:
ValueError: shape mismatch: objects cannot be broadcast to a single shape
In C, we get no error at all. This due to the fact that when we work with matrices, we actually are using pointer arithmetic. So pretty much anything we do is valid C, even if it makes no sense in the problem domain.
We also can work just as easily with complex numbers. If we wanted to create an array of 64-bit complex numbers, we would write:
a=zeros((500,500), dtype=complex64)
which would give us a 500x500 element matrix initialized with zeros. We access the real and imaginary parts of each element using:
a.real[0,0]=1.0 a.imag[0,0]=2.0
which would set the value 1+2j into the [0,0] element.
There also are functions to give us more complicated results. These include dot products, inner products, outer products, inverses, transposes, traces and so forth. Needless to say, we have a great deal of tools at our disposal to do a fair amount of science already. But is that enough? Of course not.
Now that we can do some math, how do we get some “real” science done? This is where we start using the features of our second package of interest, scipy. With this package, we have quite a few more functions available to do some fairly sophisticated computational science. Let's look at an example of simple data analysis to show what kind of work is possible.
Let's assume you've collected some data and want to see what form this data has, whether there is any periodicity. The following code lets us do that:
import scipy
inFile = file('input.txt', r)
inArray = scipy.io.read_array(inFile)
outArray = fft(inArray)
outFile = file('output.txt', w)
scipy.io.write_array(outFile, outArray)
As you can see, reading in the data is a one-liner. In this example, we use the FFT functions to convert the signal to the frequency domain. This lets us see the spread of frequencies in the data. The equivalent C or FORTRAN code is simply too large to include here.
But, what if we want to look at this data to see whether there is anything interesting? Luckily, there is another package, called matplotlib, which can be used to generate graphics for this very purpose. If we generate a sine wave and pass it through an FFT, we can see what form this data has by graphing it (Figures 1 and 2).
We see that the sine wave looks regular, and the FFT confirms this by having a single peak at the frequency of the sine wave. We just did some basic data analysis.
This shows us how easy it is to do fairly sophisticated scientific programming. And, if we use an interactive Python environment, we can do this kind of scientific analysis in an exploratory way, allowing us to experiment on our data in near real time.
Luckily for us, the people at the SciPy Project have thought of this and have given us the program ipython. This also is available at the main SciPy site. ipython has been written to work with scipy, numpy and matplotlib in a very seamless way. To execute it with matplotlib support, type:
ipython -pylab
The interface is a simple ASCII one, as shown in Figure 3.
If we use it to plot the sine wave from above, it simply pops up a display window to draw in the plot (Figure 4).
The plot window allows you to save your brilliant graphs and plots, so you can show the entire world your scientific breakthrough. All of the plots for this article actually were generated this way.
So, we've started to do some real computational science and some basic data analysis. What do we do next? Why, we go bigger, of course.
So far, we have looked at relatively small data sets and relatively straightforward computations. But, what if we have really large amounts of data, or we have a much more complex analysis we would like to run? We can take advantage of parallelism and run our code on a high-performance computing cluster.
The good people at the SciPy site have written another module called mpi4py. This module provides a Python implementation of the MPI standard. With it, we can write message-passing programs. It does require some work to install, however.
The first step is to install an MPI implementation for your machine (such as MPICH, OpenMPI or LAM). Most distributions have packages for MPI, so that's the easiest way to install it. Then, you can build and install mpi4py the usual way with the following:
python setup.py build python setup.py install
To test it, execute:
mpirun -np 5 python tests/helloworld.py
which will run a five-process Python and run the test script.
Now, we can write our program to divide our large data set among the available processors if that is our bottleneck. Or, if we want to do a large simulation, we can divide the simulation space among all the available processors. Unfortunately, a useful discussion of MPI programming would be another article or two on its own. But, I encourage you to get a good textbook on MPI and do some experimenting yourself.
Although any interpreted language will have a hard time matching the speed of a compiled, optimized language, we have seen that this is not as big a deterrent as it once was. Modern machines run fast enough to more than make up for the overhead of interpretation. This opens up the world of complex applications to using languages like Python.
This article has been able to introduce only the most basic available features. Fortunately, many very good tutorials have been written and are available from the main SciPy site. So, go out and do more science, the Python way.
Special Magazine Offer -- Free Gift with Subscription
Receive a free digital copy of Linux Journal's System Administration Special Edition as well as instant online access to current and past issues. CLICK HERE for offer
Linux Journal: delivering readers the advice and inspiration they need to get the most out of their Linux systems since 1994.
Subscribe now!
The Latest
Newsletter
Featured Videos
Set up a secure virtual host in Apache
December 22nd, 2008 by Elliot Isaacson in
Setting up an https server in Apache is easy. This tutorial covers how to create and sign your ssl certificate as well as how to configure the web server.
Recently Popular
From the Magazine
January 2009, #177
It's a battle as old as time: good vs. evil. Fortunately, Linux and FOSS are on our side as we wage the battle against those who try to steal our secrets and invade our systems.
Checking your system's security is best done sooner rather than later. Test the locks with our article on security verification; find out how to use PAM to help secure your systems; use MinorFS and AppArmor to implement discretionary access control; learn more about Samba security in part III of our series; use Darknet to help detect bots and secure your systems; use the Yubikey to increase your site's security; and don't forget to lock the doors, because a cold boot attack could render your security useless if somebody has physical access to your computer.
But, we're not just about sowing the seeds of fear. We also show you how to use memcached in Rails, how to manage multiple servers efficiently, how to deploy applications easily with Capistrano, how to manage your videos with MythVideo, how to mix it up a bit (your audio that is), and even play a few games.




Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Technorati





The C code
On December 24th, 2008 Peter Cordes (not verified) says:
I had the same thought as Rob Hooft about the timing when I read this article, and came here to comment. As I suspected, main() gets optimized away to nothing because the result is never used. I typed in the code and compiled it with gcc 4.3 -O3 -fverbose-asm -S:
objdump -d matmul
00000000004004b0 :
4004b0: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
4004b2: c3 retq
4004b3: 90 nop
4004b4: 90 nop
...
(I added a return 0 to main(), hence clearing the return value register with xor.)
0.01 seconds is typical for program that just return true without doing anything at all (other than dynamically linking libc, and other libc initialization, at startup, etc). On my system, (Ubuntu Intrepid with Linux 2.6.27, Ubuntu's "generic" AMD64 kernel image on a C2D: E6600 DDR2-800 g965), the program compiled with gcc -O3 takes 0.001 seconds. The reported time has more to do with kernel time resolution than anything else.
Berthold is also correct, although I didn't know what he meant at first, since I wasn't very familiar with numpy. In numpy, a1 * a2 is an element-wise product: in C:
a3[i][j] = a1[i][j] * a2[i][j];
instead of the inner loop over k. This is not the same as what C = A * B means in usual mathematical notation, hence the confusion. There, it means the matrix product, which is what the C routine calculates, and what dgemm() from BLAS calculates. In numpy, that is numpy.dot(a1, a2).
If you don't want gcc (or any other compiler) to optimize away a calculation, you have to use the result. Either with gcc tricks like __attribute__ ((used)) or by passing the address of the output array to a function that the compiler can't see while it's compiling the function you're testing. Calling a function in a file that you compile separately will defeat any optimizer except e.g. Sun Studio's cross-file optimizer mode that puts extra information in the .o files...
matmul.c:
/* usemem.c contains: void usemem(void*p){} * gcc won't do cross-file inlining/optimizations when you don't * compile both files at the same time. Note that -O implies -funit-at-a-time */ void usemem(void *); #define ASIZE 5000 // macro this so you can redefine it for other compilers. #define DECLARE_ALIGNED( var, n ) var __attribute__((aligned(n))) static double DECLARE_ALIGNED(a1[ASIZE][ASIZE], 128); static double DECLARE_ALIGNED(a2[ASIZE][ASIZE], 128); static __attribute__ ((used, aligned(128))) double a3[ASIZE][ASIZE]; int main(){ int i,j; for(i=0; i< ASIZE ; i++){ for(j=0; j< ASIZE ; j++){ double tmp = 0; // allows more optimization than referencing a3[i][j] repeatedly. Really. C is like that. #ifdef ELEMENTWISE tmp = a1[i][j] * a2[i][j]; #else int k; for(k=0; k< ASIZE ; k++){ tmp += a1[i][k] * a2[k][j]; } #endif a3[i][j] = tmp; } } // usemem(a3); return 0; }matmul.py:
results:
gcc 4.3's auto-vectorized (SSE2) version is twice as fast as gcc 3.4's scalar version on a large array like this that doesn't fit in cache (process RSS ~= 450MB). gcc4 vectorizes the loop to process two columns at once, so it only triggers half the cache misses of a direct interpretation of the C code. going down a colum in a row-major array is slow, because each successive element is in a new cache line. Optimized libraries, like ATLAS's BLAS implementation, which numpy uses, can reduce memory access costs to ~n^2 instead of ~n^3, by working in blocks that fit in the cache. GCC's vectorization illustrates that there's a lot to be gained from improved memory access patterns. (it's also a win when you're FPU limited, on small cached arrays, but trust me, it's the memory access that's giving the factor of 2 speedup with an array of 5000. Use oprofile yourself if you want to see.)
So numpy vs. naive C is a huge win if your arrays are not tiny, since even a few decent-sized naive matmuls will dominate your run time regardless of language.
BTW, I used to work at Dalhousie as a Linux cluster sysadmin and all around geek (with the phylogenetics group), where I had heard of ACEnet, where Joey works. Hi!
Error in exaple
On October 30th, 2008 bhoel says:
Joey,
Your runtime comparison does compare apple with oranges. The C codes does not compute a1*a2 but numpy.dot(a1, a2) in numpy terms.
Regards
Berthold
C optimization
On October 15th, 2008 Rob Hooft (not verified) says:
Joey,
Thanks for a nice article expressing a lot of my feelings regarding the comparison of C/Fortran and Python.
I do have one remark: your 250000 element matrix multiplication requires 2x500^3 = 250M floating point operations. You are suggesting that the C program performed those in 0.01 second. That requires 25Gflops and a similar amount of integer operations, simultaneously. This is more than most of us have available in their desktops. I think this shows that "gcc -O3" optimized your entire block of code out of the program, leaving just the startup and termination of the program.
In fact, the Python program you show here performs very close to the optimum, since the total interpreter overhead is only a handful of lines of code. It is in small arrays, like 3x3 matrix multiplications, that C can be significantly faster than Python.
Post new comment