Nevermind. You have a non-zero probability of having zero offspring since
it's Poisson. This works if every element is at least 1. However, you can
have the population size decrease, which then causes errors if you resize
first. But then you still want to put the new elements in the first n slot
I see it now. Sum the elements to resize the array, and then loop through
backwards adding the values (so that way you don't overwrite what
you haven't used).
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:34:11 AM UTC-7, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote:
>
> Sum the elements and resize the array to that length?
Sum the elements and resize the array to that length?
Let me explain. The easy place to add an in-place operation with resize!
would be with the RNG call, rpois. I used resize! to make the Poisson RNG
go a little faster. It's now:
function rpois!(n::Int,p::Vector{Float64},out::Vector{Int})
resize!(out,n)
for i in 1:n
@inbounds out[i
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 5:37:12 AM UTC-4, Chris Rackauckas wrote:
>
> Maybe. I thought about that, but I don't think that satisfies the "elegant
> and compactness" requirement, unless there's an easy way to do the growing
> without too much extra code hanging around.
>
Why is `resize!`
feels like one may want a little auxiliary package that can make available
small chunks from a long pre-allocated vector.
On Thursday, 21 July 2016 10:37:12 UTC+1, Chris Rackauckas wrote:
>
> Maybe. I thought about that, but I don't think that satisfies the "elegant
> and compactness" requireme
Maybe. I thought about that, but I don't think that satisfies the "elegant
and compactness" requirement, unless there's an easy way to do the growing
without too much extra code hanging around.
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 1:54:10 AM UTC-7, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>
> could still preallocate a
could still preallocate and grow as needed?
On Thursday, 21 July 2016 02:48:58 UTC+1, Chris Rackauckas wrote:
>
> Most of the arrays are changing size each time though, since they
> represent a population which changes each timestep.
>
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-7, Steven G.
Most of the arrays are changing size each time though, since they represent
a population which changes each timestep.
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-7, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
>
> It looks like you are allocating lots of arrays in your doStep inner-loop
> function, so I'm sure yo
It looks like you are allocating lots of arrays in your doStep inner-loop
function, so I'm sure you could improve it by moving the allocations out of
the inner loop. (In general, vectorized routines are convenient but they
aren't the fastest way to do things.)
10 matches
Mail list logo
