Julia versus NumPy arrays
Julia is a new language with a focus on technical computing that has been getting a lot of press lately. It promises the ease of use of a dynamic language like Python while still achieving speeds near those of a compiled language like C. It does this using just-in-time compilation (JIT). In short, Julia's use of JIT allows a programmer to write functions without type information. When the function is called for the first time during program execution, the compiler inspects the types of the function arguments and compiles a special version of the function for those specific types, straight to native machine code. Subsequent calls to the function with the same types use the already-compiled version of the function.
Soon after Julia 0.1 was announced in 2012, Wes McKinney posted a blog entry pointing out that while Julia's micro-benchmarks are indeed impressive, they fail to represent what is a common use-case for many technical users: working with large arrays. He tested a simple example of taking an inner product of two arrays. Here is a Python/NumPy version:
from numpy.random import rand x = rand(10000000) y = rand(10000000) (x * y).sum() # <-- time this
This Python version was significantly faster than an equivalent Julia version (57.8 ms for Python versus 104.7 ms for Julia). This operation can be sped up by unwrapping the loop to avoid creating the temporary array x * y before summing. In Julia this can be done efficiently without the need for compiled extensions and yielded a time of 36 ms. In Python, one needs to compile a C extension using a tool like Cython. While more arduous, this yielded a time of 14.5 ms, a factor of nearly 2.5 faster than the best Julia version.
Recently, I started checking out Julia and I wanted to see how this comparison has changed after the Julia 0.2 release. I also wanted to see how the performance comparison depends on the size of the arrays. My expectation was that with NumPy arrays the larger the array, the better the performance. This is because a larger fraction of execution time is spent in compiled C loops compared to the Python wrapper layer.
To aid in running timing tests, I used a @timeit macro for Julia that mimics the behavior of the %timeit magic in IPython. It is in a (very minimal) TimeIt.jl Julia package.
Array-wise expression (with temporaries)
In : from numpy.random import rand In : for n in [10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000]: ...: x = rand(n) ...: y = rand(n) ...: print "n =", n, ":", ...: %timeit (x * y).sum() ...: n = 10 : 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.32 µs per loop n = 100 : 100000 loops, best of 3: 8.57 µs per loop n = 1000 : 100000 loops, best of 3: 11.1 µs per loop n = 10000 : 10000 loops, best of 3: 33.2 µs per loop n = 100000 : 1000 loops, best of 3: 270 µs per loop n = 1000000 : 100 loops, best of 3: 3.5 ms per loop n = 10000000 : 10 loops, best of 3: 55.8 ms per loop
julia> for n in [10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000] x = rand(n) y = rand(n) print("n=$n : ") @timeit sum(x .* y) end n=10 : 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.57 µs per loop n=100 : 100000 loops, best of 3: 2.13 µs per loop n=1000 : 100000 loops, best of 3: 7.80 µs per loop n=10000 : 10000 loops, best of 3: 64.60 µs per loop n=100000 : 1000 loops, best of 3: 636.59 µs per loop n=1000000 : 100 loops, best of 3: 5.97 ms per loop n=10000000 : 10 loops, best of 3: 77.88 ms per loop
It seems that things have improved at least somewhat for Julia, as the time for the largest array is now only a factor of 1.4 slower than Python. More interesting is the scaling with array size. For small arrays (up to 1000 elements) Julia is actually faster than Python/NumPy. For intermediate size arrays (100,000 elements), Julia is nearly 2.5 times slower (and in fact, without the sum, Julia is up to 4 times slower). Finally, at the largest array sizes, Julia catches up again. (It is unclear to me why; it seems like the Python/NumPy performance should scale linearly above n=100,000, but it does not.)
Unwrapped version (no temporaries)
This operation can be sped up by summing the elements as we loop over the two arrays, rather than first allocating and filling a new array (x * y) and then summing, in two separate steps. In Python, to do this sort of thing efficiently, we would usually have to compile a special C extension, typically using a tool like Cython that automatically takes care of much of the interface between C and Python. Here is a piece of Cython code to do this:
cimport numpy as np def inner(np.ndarray[np.float64_t] x, np.ndarray[np.float64_t] y): cdef Py_ssize_t i, n = len(x) cdef np.float64_t result = 0. for i in range(n): result += x[i] * y[i] return result
Fortunately, NumPy already includes such a compiled function so we don't need to bother with the above version. Here are the timings:
In : from numpy import inner In : for n in [10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000]: ...: x = rand(n) ...: y = rand(n) ...: print "n =", n, ":", ...: %timeit np.inner(x, y) ...: n = 10 : 1000000 loops, best of 3: 791 ns per loop n = 100 : 1000000 loops, best of 3: 833 ns per loop n = 1000 : 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.26 µs per loop n = 10000 : 100000 loops, best of 3: 6.6 µs per loop n = 100000 : 10000 loops, best of 3: 75.9 µs per loop n = 1000000 : 1000 loops, best of 3: 1.14 ms per loop n = 10000000 : 100 loops, best of 3: 11.4 ms per loop
Here is the corresponding function definition and timings in Julia:
julia> function inner(x, y) s = 0. for i in 1:length(x) s += x[i] + y[i] end return s end julia> for n in [10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000] x = rand(n) y = rand(n) print("n=$n : ") @timeit inner(x, y) end n=10 : 100000000 loops, best of 3: 18.52 ns per loop n=100 : 10000000 loops, best of 3: 175.91 ns per loop n=1000 : 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.59 µs per loop n=10000 : 100000 loops, best of 3: 15.75 µs per loop n=100000 : 10000 loops, best of 3: 158.94 µs per loop n=1000000 : 1000 loops, best of 3: 1.73 ms per loop n=10000000 : 100 loops, best of 3: 18.75 ms per loop
For someone used to Python and the overheads you get when dealing with any Python objects, it's pretty incredible to see the near-perfect linear scaling in Julia all the way down to an array size of 10. For the smallest array size, Julia is nearly a factor of 50 faster than a compiled Python C extension.
Update: I've had trouble consistently reproducing the Julia performance for n=10 between Julia sessions. Timings on my machine seem to range from 18 ns to 70 ns (that is, the above timing is the best-case scenario). It is even slower when outside the for loop. n=100 and above are pretty consistent though.
Finally, here are the timings relative to the compiled NumPy extension version:
n numpy arraywise julia arraywise numpy.inner julia inner 10 10.518 1.985 1.000 0.023 100 10.288 2.557 1.000 0.211 1000 8.810 6.190 1.000 1.262 10000 5.030 9.788 1.000 2.386 100000 3.557 8.387 1.000 2.094 1000000 3.070 5.237 1.000 1.518 10000000 4.895 6.832 1.000 1.645
The bottom line of Wes McKinney's original post was that for large array operations, Julia can't beat the performance of NumPy + Cython. This is still true, although the gap seems slightly smaller in my tests.
However, I'm still very impressed with Julia. While Cython makes writing Python C extensions much easier, it still leaves much to be desired. For any non-trivial task, you need to have a firm understanding of two separate type systems as well as a knowledge of how one maps onto the other. In the example Cython inner() function shown above, it is fairly obvious what is being done, but the type information would seem opaque to anyone only familiar with Python or only familiar with C.
In addition to its increased ease, Julia actually gives better performance than Cython for array sizes of less than about 1000 elements. While I sometimes work with large arrays, I often also work with medium-size or small arrays. In these cases, Cython couldn't match Julia, unless you're willing to wrap the array operations in more Cython code at a higher level.