# Numpy/Python performing terribly vs. Matlab

Novice programmer here. I'm writing a program that analyzes the relative spatial locations of points (cells). The program gets boundaries and cell type off an array with the x coordinate in column 1, y coordinate in column 2, and cell type in column 3. It then checks each cell for cell type and appropriate distance from the bounds. If it passes, it then calculates its distance from each other cell in the array and if the distance is within a specified analysis range it adds it to an output array at that distance.

My cell marking program is in wxpython so I was hoping to develop this program in python as well and eventually stick it into the GUI. Unfortunately right now python takes ~20 seconds to run the core loop on my machine while MATLAB can do ~15 loops/second. Since I'm planning on doing 1000 loops (with a randomized comparison condition) on ~30 cases times several exploratory analysis types this is not a trivial difference.

I tried running a profiler and array calls are 1/4 of the time, almost all of the rest is unspecified loop time.

Here is the python code for the main loop:

```for basecell in range (0, cellnumber-1):
if firstcelltype == np.array((cellrecord[basecell,2])):
xloc=np.array((cellrecord[basecell,0]))
yloc=np.array((cellrecord[basecell,1]))
xedgedist=(xbound-xloc)
yedgedist=(ybound-yloc)
if xloc>excludedist and xedgedist>excludedist and yloc>excludedist and    yedgedist>excludedist:
for comparecell in range (0, cellnumber-1):
if secondcelltype==np.array((cellrecord[comparecell,2])):
xcomploc=np.array((cellrecord[comparecell,0]))
ycomploc=np.array((cellrecord[comparecell,1]))
dist=math.sqrt((xcomploc-xloc)**2+(ycomploc-yloc)**2)
dist=round(dist)
if dist>=1 and dist<=analysisdist:
arraytarget=round(dist*analysisdist/intervalnumber)
targetcell=arraytarget-1
```

Here is the matlab code for the main loop:

```for basecell = 1:cellnumber;
if firstcelltype==cellrecord(basecell,3);
xloc=cellrecord(basecell,1);
yloc=cellrecord(basecell,2);
xedgedist=(xbound-xloc);
yedgedist=(ybound-yloc);
if (xloc>excludedist) && (yloc>excludedist) && (xedgedist>excludedist) && (yedgedist>excludedist);
for comparecell = 1:cellnumber;
if secondcelltype==cellrecord(comparecell,3);
xcomploc=cellrecord(comparecell,1);
ycomploc=cellrecord(comparecell,2);
dist=sqrt((xcomploc-xloc)^2+(ycomploc-yloc)^2);
if (dist>=1) && (dist<=100.4999);
arraytarget=round(dist*analysisdist/intervalnumber);
spatialsum(1,arraytarget)=spatialsum(1,arraytarget)+1;
end
end
end
end
end
end
```

Thanks!

Here are some ways to speed up your python code.

First: Don't make np arrays when you are only storing one value. You do this many times over in your code. For instance,

```if firstcelltype == np.array((cellrecord[basecell,2])):
```

can just be

``` if firstcelltype == cellrecord[basecell,2]:
```

I'll show you why with some timeit statements:

```>>> timeit.Timer('x = 111.1').timeit()
0.045882196294822819
>>> t=timeit.Timer('x = np.array(111.1)','import numpy as np').timeit()
0.55774970267830071
```

That's an order of magnitude in difference between those calls.

Second: The following code:

```arraytarget=round(dist*analysisdist/intervalnumber)
targetcell=arraytarget-1
```

can be replaced with

```arraytarget=round(dist*analysisdist/intervalnumber)-1
spatialraw[arraytarget] += 1
```

Third: You can get rid of the sqrt as Philip mentioned by squaring analysisdist beforehand. However, since you use analysisdist to get arraytarget, you might want to create a separate variable, analysisdist2 that is the square of analysisdist and use that for your comparison.

Fourth: You are looking for cells that match secondcelltype every time you get to that point rather than finding those one time and using the list over and over again. You could define an array:

```comparecells = np.where(cellrecord[:,2]==secondcelltype)
```

and then replace

```for comparecell in range (0, cellnumber-1):
if secondcelltype==np.array((cellrecord[comparecell,2])):
```

with

```for comparecell in comparecells:
```

Fifth: Use psyco. It is a JIT compiler. Matlab has a built-in JIT compiler if you're using a somewhat recent version. This should speed-up your code a bit.

Sixth: If the code still isn't fast enough after all previous steps, then you should try vectorizing your code. It shouldn't be too difficult. Basically, the more stuff you can have in numpy arrays the better. Here's my try at vectorizing:

```basecells = np.where(cellrecord[:,2]==firstcelltype)
xlocs = cellrecord[basecells, 0]
ylocs = cellrecord[basecells, 1]
xedgedists = xbound - xloc
yedgedists = ybound - yloc
whichcells = np.where((xlocs>excludedist) & (xedgedists>excludedist) & (ylocs>excludedist) & (yedgedists>excludedist))
selectedcells = basecells[whichcells]
comparecells = np.where(cellrecord[:,2]==secondcelltype)
xcomplocs = cellrecords[comparecells,0]
ycomplocs = cellrecords[comparecells,1]
analysisdist2 = analysisdist**2
for basecell in selectedcells:
dists = np.round((xcomplocs-xlocs[basecell])**2 + (ycomplocs-ylocs[basecell])**2)
whichcells = np.where((dists >= 1) & (dists <= analysisdist2))
arraytargets = np.round(dists[whichcells]*analysisdist/intervalnumber) - 1
for target in arraytargets:
spatialraw[target] += 1
```

You can probably take out that inner for loop, but you have to be careful because some of the elements of arraytargets could be the same. Also, I didn't actually try out all of the code, so there could be a bug or typo in there. Hopefully, it gives you a good idea of how to do this. Oh, one more thing. You make analysisdist/intervalnumber a separate variable to avoid doing that division over and over again.

Not too sure about the slowness of python but you Matlab code can be HIGHLY optimized. Nested for-loops tend to have horrible performance issues. You can replace the inner loop with a vectorized function ... as below:

```for basecell = 1:cellnumber;
if firstcelltype==cellrecord(basecell,3);
xloc=cellrecord(basecell,1);
yloc=cellrecord(basecell,2);
xedgedist=(xbound-xloc);
yedgedist=(ybound-yloc);
if (xloc>excludedist) && (yloc>excludedist) && (xedgedist>excludedist) && (yedgedist>excludedist);
%             for comparecell = 1:cellnumber;
%                 if secondcelltype==cellrecord(comparecell,3);
%                     xcomploc=cellrecord(comparecell,1);
%                     ycomploc=cellrecord(comparecell,2);
%                     dist=sqrt((xcomploc-xloc)^2+(ycomploc-yloc)^2);
%                     if (dist>=1) && (dist<=100.4999);
%                         arraytarget=round(dist*analysisdist/intervalnumber);
%                         spatialsum(1,arraytarget)=spatialsum(1,arraytarget)+1;
%                    end
%                end
%            end
%replace with:
dist_vec = sqrt((xcomploc_vec-xloc)^2+(ycomploc_vec-yloc)^2);
count = accumarray(arraytarget_vec,1, [size(spatialsum,1),1]);
spatialsum(:,1) = spatialsum(:,1)+count;
end
end
end
```

There may be some small errors in there since I don't have any data to test the code with but it should get ~10X speed up on the Matlab code.

From my experience with numpy I've noticed that swapping out for-loops for vectorized/matrix-based arithmetic has noticeable speed-ups as well. However, without the shapes the shapes of all of your variables its hard to vectorize things.

You can avoid some of the math.sqrt calls by replacing the lines

```                dist=math.sqrt((xcomploc-xloc)**2+(ycomploc-yloc)**2)
dist=round(dist)
if dist>=1 and dist<=analysisdist:
arraytarget=round(dist*analysisdist/intervalnumber)
```

with

```                dist=(xcomploc-xloc)**2+(ycomploc-yloc)**2
dist=round(dist)
if dist>=1 and dist<=analysisdist_squared:
arraytarget=round(math.sqrt(dist)*analysisdist/intervalnumber)
```

where you have the line

``` analysisdist_squared = analysis_dist * analysis_dist
```

outside of the main loop of your function.

Since math.sqrt is called in the innermost loop, you should have from math import sqrt at the top of the module and just call the function as sqrt.

I would also try replacing

```                dist=(xcomploc-xloc)**2+(ycomploc-yloc)**2
```

with

```                dist=(xcomploc-xloc)*(xcomploc-xloc)+(ycomploc-yloc)*(ycomploc-yloc)
```

There's a chance it will produce faster byte code to do multiplication rather than exponentiation.

I doubt these will get you all the way to MATLABs performance, but they should help reduce some overhead.

If you have a multicore, you could maybe give the multiprocessing module a try and use multiple processes to make use of all the cores.

Instead of sqrt you could use x**0.5, which is, if I remember correct, slightly faster.