Python Numpy : np.int32 "slower" than np.float64

4.9k views Asked by At

I would like to understand a strange behavior of python. Let us consider a matrix Mwith shape 6000 x 2000. This matrix is filled with signed integers. I want to compute np.transpose(M)*M. Two options:

  • When I do it "naturally" (i.e. without specifying any typing), numpy selects the type np.int32 and the operation takes around 150s.
  • When I force the type to be np.float64 (using dtype=...), the same operation takes around 2s.

How can we explain this behavior ? I was naively thinking that a int multiplication was cheaper than a float multiplication.

Thanks a lot for your help.

2

There are 2 answers

5
Anycorn On BEST ANSWER

No, integer multiplies aren't cheaper. But more on that later. Most likely (I am 99% sure) numpy calls BLAS routine under blankets, which can be as efficient as 90% of peak CPU performance. There aren't special provisions for int matrix multiplies, most likely it is done in Python rather than machine-compiled version - I am actually wrong on this, see below.

With regards to int vs float speed: on most architectures (Intel) they are roughly the same, around 3-5 cycles or so per instruction, both have serial (X87) and vector (XMM) version. On Sandy bridge, PMUL*** (integer vector multiply) is 5 cycles and so are the MULP* (floating multiplies). With Sandy Bridge you also have 256-bit SIMD vectors ops (YMM) - you get 8 float ops per instructions - I am not sure if there is an int counterpart.

This here is a great reference: http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf

That said, instruction latencies don't explain 75X speed difference. It is probably a combination of optimized BLAS (threaded probably) and int32 being handled in Python rather than C/Fortran.

I profiled following snippet:

>>> F = (np.random.random((6000,2000))+4)
>>> I = F.astype(np.int32)
>>> np.dot(F, F.transpose()); np.dot(I, I.transpose())

and this is what oprofile says:

CPU_CLK_UNHALT...|
  samples|      %|
------------------
  2076880 51.5705 multiarray.so
  1928787 47.8933 libblas.so.3.0

However the libblas is unoptimized serial Netlib Blas. With a good BLAS implementation that 47% will be much lower, especially if it is threaded.

Edit: It seems numpy does provide compiled version of integer matrix multiply.

2
Daniel On

Some supplemental information that I found through experimentation.

This can be circumvented. Timings are on a intel cpu with intel mkl for BLAS. Im also using fortran ordered arrays to keep everything equivalent a the scipy.linalg.blas is the fortran BLAS.

Lets take the following example:

from scipy.linalg.blas import sgemm
from scipy.linalg.blas import dgemm

arr_int64 = np.random.randint(-500,500,(6000,2000))

arr_int32 = array_int64.astype(np.int32)

arr_float64 = array_int64.astype(np.float64)+np.random.rand(6000,2000)

arr_float32 = array_int64.astype(np.float32)

First lets take the DGEMM calls.

%timeit np.dot(arr_float64.T,arr_float64) #400% CPU threaded BLAS
1 loops, best of 3: 969 ms per loop

%timeit np.dot(arr_float32.T,arr_float32) #400% CPU threaded BLAS
1 loops, best of 3: 513 ms per loop

%timeit np.dot(arr_int64.T,arr_int64)     #100% CPU?
1 loops, best of 3: 24.7 s per loop

%timeit np.dot(arr_int32.T,arr_int32)     #100% CPU?
1 loops, best of 3: 21.3 s per loop

Calling DGEMM/SGEMM directly:

%timeit dgemm(alpha=1, a=arr_float64, b=arr_float64, trans_a=True)
1 loops, best of 3: 1.13 s per loop

%timeit dgemm(alpha=1, a=arr_int64, b=arr_int64, trans_a=True)
1 loops, best of 3: 869 ms per loop

%timeit sgemm(alpha=1, a=arr_float32, b=arr_float32, trans_a=True)
1 loops, best of 3: 657 ms per loop

%timeit sgemm(alpha=1, a=arr_int32, b=arr_int32, trans_a=True)
1 loops, best of 3: 432 ms per loop

np.allclose( np.dot(arr_int32.T,arr_int32), sgemm(alpha=1, a=arr_int32, b=arr_int32, trans_a=True))
#True

Looks like something strange going on in the np.dot call. Similar to naive algorithm speed:

%timeit np.einsum('ij,jk',arr_int32.T,arr_int32)
1 loops, best of 3: 14.1 s per loop

%timeit np.einsum('ij,jk',arr_int64.T,arr_int64)
1 loops, best of 3: 26 s per loop