I also noted that pairwise has a hard limit just above 1*1 array
size output, at least it crashes julia for me. Is there a way to increase
this?
Well, I solved it for now with subsampling:
using Distance
n=5
a=rand(3,n)
#@time r=pairwise(Euclidean(),a,a)
subsample=10
m=integer(n/subsample)
s=spzeros(n,n)
r=zeros(m,m)
threshold=0.2
for i=1:subsample-1
ii=(i-1)*m+1
for j=1:subsample-1
Hi Jon,
A while ago there was a discussion on the list about a similar
problem: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-users/72WC-zNo8Fk
Maybe the suggestions there are of any help?
Best,
Alex.
Hi
Recently I've been writing some macros that work on functions. Generally I
want to take a function, change something about it and then output the
changed function. In my experience the AST for a function can vary quite a
bit and it is only as I add more test-cases for my macros that I
Stefan,
You wanted to know how the nuclear option worked in comparison to usage of
sum(sub(A,...) for my problem.
This is just AMAZING!
@time for your 2nd suggestion i.e., sum,sub gave a time of 12.9 seconds
@time for your 3rd suggestion i.e., -nuclear suggestion gave a time of
0.36. This is
There already is the tuple function, so you don't really need your own.
In [7]: tuple([1,2,3]...)
Out [7]: (1,2,3)
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:33 AM, John Myles White johnmyleswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nope, this is the standard way to convert between tuples and arrays.
Usually, if you
Is there a good way to create tuples from arrays? The best I've come up
with is
function make_tuple(a...)
return a
end
make_tuple({1, 2, 3}...)
I feel that there should be a better way.
This is pretty standard fare for Julia. Things like sum are really wasteful
with memory, whereas the nuclear option is very conservative when implemented
right.
— John
On Jan 30, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Rajn rjngrj2...@gmail.com wrote:
Stefan,
You wanted to know how the nuclear option worked in
Ok bump anyone for this?
I found the link which exactly refers to the errors I am getting during
'make' and is referred to as Haswell bug!
However, from the link I am unable to understand what is the resolution to
this problem.
Can someone please point out to me the right direction?
Thanks
The
FYI we managed to get around this today by just deleting Stats and
METADATA, so maybe try that before wiping all of ~/.julia
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:30:45 PM UTC-5, John Myles White wrote:
Ok. You'll unfortunately have to either (1) delete your ~/.julia folder or
(2) manually rename
Hi Andy,
Your meta package looks great! I absolutely think that you should split it
out in a separate package. I've been playing around with generating OpenCL
code from julia's AST (both the lowered typed and untyped forms) and I
could reuse a lot of your work (I've only started parsing the
There are some similar facilities in base/cartesian.jl and IProfile.jl. Seems
like it might be time to centralize some of this. Perhaps we should expand
base/meta.jl?
Best,
--Tim
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 06:40:36 AM Andrew Burrows wrote:
Hi
Recently I've been writing some macros that
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 07:32:18 AM John Myles White wrote:
This is pretty standard fare for Julia. Things like sum are really wasteful
with memory, whereas the nuclear option is very conservative when
implemented right.
To be fair, it's not sum() that's to blame, the problem is
That's true. Sorry for misstating the core issue, which is memory allocation
related to the current definition of array indexing.
-- John
On Jan 30, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Tim Holy tim.h...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 07:32:18 AM John Myles White wrote:
This is pretty standard
Yes, that's the plan. It's a tricky change.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Johan Sigfrids
johan.sigfr...@gmail.comwrote:
Couldn't Julia provide a view by default when indexing? You could then
copy if you want a new one.
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:55:34 PM UTC+2, Tim Holy wrote:
Yes, it was always the intention to expand base/meta.jl once we had an idea
what more should go into it. I did an initial commit with what I felt was
the absolutely most essential tools for metaprogramming, plus show_sexpr
which is at least incredibly useful. So anyone who has code that they
What's the plan for reading in files that have a header row with non-valid
Julia identifiers?
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:03:39 PM UTC-5, John Myles White wrote:
Please go ahead and add deprecation warnings.
— John
On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Simon Kornblith
We will automatically convert them to valid identifiers. I fear we are probably
not doing that yet, but will get it done before we release a new version.
-- John
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Malmaud malm...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the plan for reading in files that have a header
I was wondering if that would get quicker if it was first run on a smaller
matrix? JIT and all that...
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:15:40 PM UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
Yes, that's the plan. It's a tricky change.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Johan Sigfrids
Yes, there is definitely going to be some time spent on JIT the first time,
so to get a real timing, you need to measure the second time running it.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, zmk zamoj...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if that would get quicker if it was first run on a smaller
This is true for modern MATLAB versions as well.
On Thursday, 30 January 2014 15:17:26 UTC-6, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
Yes, there is definitely going to be some time spent on JIT the first
time, so to get a real timing, you need to measure the second time running
it.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014
The code that I used in the example is slightly different from the code I
showed, and also wrong. I added the condition that ir != jr when deciding
whether to record a value in the triplet form. However, that is the wrong
condition. I should check whether ioffset + ir is equal to joffset +
Hi,
I've been working on type-based static analysis in Julia for a while now,
and I just registered TypeCheck.jl today. You can find the source and
documentation here: https://github.com/astrieanna/TypeCheck.jl
(It only works on v0.3)
The package has a couple of functions related to
Is it possible to get IJulia to display more rows/columns in the output of
a matrix?
Julia v0.3 is slated to be released in the next month or so. Because some
users (now or in the future) may want to have multiple versions of Julia
installed, a recent change in v0.3 creates versioned .julia directories by
default--i.e., for Julia v0.3, packages will be stored under
25 matches
Mail list logo
