#5930 closed enhancement (fixed)
[with patch, positive review] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system
Reported by: | William Stein | Owned by: | Mike Hansen |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | sage-4.0 |
Component: | symbolics | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Burcin Erocal | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
SEE http://wiki.sagemath.org/symbolics/pynac_todo/push
If you want to try the code out do this:
- Apply symbolics_final1.patch from #5777
- Apply symbolics_final2.patch from this ticket.
- Build new pynac spkg:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhansen/pynac-0.1.7.spkg
Attachments (1)
Change History (27)
comment:1 Changed 14 years ago by
Cc: | Burcin Erocal added |
---|---|
Component: | algebra → symbolics |
comment:2 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:3 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:4 Changed 14 years ago by
There is a sequence of *serious* speed regressions that I think Burcin caused by changes to the pynac spkg:
IN SAGE-3.2 we get OK timings for this benchmarks. They aren't great, but I can live with them, since it is"only" 57 times slower than Singular:
sage: var('x,y,z', ns=1); f = (x+y+z)^6; sage: timeit('(f*(f+1)).expand()') 125 loops, best of 3: 3.25 ms per loop
In Singular:
sage: R.<x,y,z> = QQ[] sage: timeit('g=(x+y+z)^6*((x+y+z)^6+1)') 625 loops, best of 3: 56.3 µs per loop sage: 3250/56.3 57.7264653641208
It's hard to tell, but Mathematica seems to take about 1.7ms, which is comparable to the above:
sage: timeit("s=mathematica('Expand[(x+y+z)^6*((x+y+z)^6+1)]')") 125 loops, best of 3: 1.81 ms per loop sage: timeit("s=mathematica('2+3')") 625 loops, best of 3: 125 µs per loop
Maxima via Sage takes about 61 ms, since I guess (c)lisp is slow, etc.:
sage: timeit("s=maxima('expand((x+y+z)^6*((x+y+z)^6+1))')") 5 loops, best of 3: 61.8 ms per loop
First there was a MAJOR unacceptable speed regression going to sage-3.3 (this is probably all caused by the pynac spkg). The timing jumped all the way to 42ms, so now it's almost as bad as Maxima:
sage: var('x,y,z', ns=1); f = (x+y+z)^6 (x, y, z) sage: timeit('(f*(f+1)).expand()') 5 loops, best of 3: 42.1 ms per loop
In fact, directly in sage-3.2 with old Maxima symbolics:
sage: var('x,y,z', ns=0); f = (x+y+z)^6 sage: timeit('(f*(f+1)).expand()') 5 loops, best of 3: 106 ms per loop
IN SAGE-3.4.2 with new symbolics:
sage: var('x,y,z', ns=1); f = (x+y+z)^6 (x, y, z) sage: timeit('(f*(f+1)).expand()') 5 loops, best of 3: 206 ms per loop
This may be due to a change in the pynac layer, where it is calling out to Python for some reason, even though it shouldn't need to. 206ms is really unacceptable. It's much slower than Maxima itself, it's 63 times slower than Pynac *was* just a few months ago, and it's 367 times slower than Singular.
comment:5 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:6 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:7 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Milestone: | sage-4.0.1 → sage-4.0 |
comment:8 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Owner: | changed from tbd to Mike Hansen |
Status: | new → assigned |
Summary: | switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system → [with patch, needs review] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system |
I've attached symbolics_final2.patch which applies on top of #5777. This patch also requires the Pynac 0.1.7 spkg at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhansen/pynac-0.1.7.spkg
comment:9 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:10 Changed 14 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:11 follow-up: 12 Changed 14 years ago by
After applying the first patch, the second fails. This is to clean 4.0.alpha0:
sage: hg_sage.apply('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/5930/symbolics_final2.patch') Attempting to load remote file: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/5930/symbolics_final2.patch Loading: [..................................................] cd "/Users/wstein/build/sage-4.0.alpha0/devel/sage" && hg status cd "/Users/wstein/build/sage-4.0.alpha0/devel/sage" && hg status cd "/Users/wstein/build/sage-4.0.alpha0/devel/sage" && hg import "/Users/wstein/.sage/temp/teragon.local/1113/tmp_2.patch" applying /Users/wstein/.sage/temp/teragon.local/1113/tmp_2.patch patching file doc/en/constructions/calculus.rst Hunk #5 FAILED at 141 1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file doc/en/constructions/calculus.rst.rej patching file sage/calculus/calculus.py Hunk #15 FAILED at 291 1 out of 25 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/calculus/calculus.py.rej patching file sage/quadratic_forms/quadratic_form__mass__Conway_Sloane_masses.py Hunk #1 succeeded at 4 with fuzz 2 (offset 0 lines). patching file sage/symbolic/function.pyx Hunk #9 FAILED at 206 1 out of 25 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/symbolic/function.pyx.rej abort: patch failed to apply
comment:12 Changed 14 years ago by
Replying to was:
After applying the first patch, the second fails. This is to clean 4.0.alpha0:
This patch set is on top of last night's 4.0.rc0 merge tree and will not work with 4.0.a0.
Cheers,
Michael
comment:13 Changed 14 years ago by
symbolics_final2.patch does not import:
mabshoff@sage:/scratch/mabshoff/sage-4.0.rc0/devel/sage$ hg import symbolics_final1.patch applying symbolics_final1.patch mabshoff@sage:/scratch/mabshoff/sage-4.0.rc0/devel/sage$ hg import symbolics_final2.patch applying symbolics_final2.patch patching file sage/symbolic/function.pyx Hunk #9 FAILED at 206 1 out of 25 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/symbolic/function.pyx.rej abort: patch failed to apply mabshoff@sage:/scratch/mabshoff/sage-4.0.rc0/devel/sage$ less sage/symbolic/function.pyx.rej
I have not touched the file that sees rejects since Mike pulled it last night, so please fix this :)
Cheers,
Michael
Changed 14 years ago by
Attachment: | symbolics_final2.patch added |
---|
comment:14 Changed 14 years ago by
Ok, the latest patch applies, but lacks a commit message.
Cheers,
Michael
comment:15 Changed 14 years ago by
Summary: | [with patch, needs review] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system → [with patch, needs work] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system |
---|
The spkg needs work:
configure: creating ./config.statusConfiguration of GiNaC 0.1.5 done. Now type "make". /bin/sh ./config.status config.status: creating Makefileconfig.status: creating pynac.spec config.status: creating pynac.pcconfig.status: creating ginac/Makefile config.status: creating ginac/version.h config.status: creating config.hconfig.status: config.h is unchanged config.status: executing depfiles commandscd . && /bin/sh /home/mabshoff/build-4.0.alpha0/sage-4.0.alpha0-cleo-system/spkg/build/pynac-0.1.7/src/missing --run autoheader aclocal.m4:20: warning: this file was generated for autoconf 2.61. You have another version of autoconf. It may work, but is not guaranteed to.If you have problems, you may need to regenerate the build system entirely. To do so, use the procedure documented by the package, typically `autoreconf'.configure.ac:26: error: Autoconf version 2.60 or higher is required aclocal.m4:7127: AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is expanded from... configure.ac:26: the top levelautom4te: /usr/bin/m4 failed with exit status: 63 autoheader: /usr/bin/autom4te failed with exit status: 63
All this autocrap should never be run in the spkg. The version number as well as the name of the library is also wrong.
Cheers,
Michael
comment:16 Changed 14 years ago by
I've been reading through the megabyte patch, and testing every function that's been touched. I'd estimate my coverage of the file to be about 20%, and I made sure to bounce around a bunch (that is, I didn't just read the top or bottom 20%). I didn't look at many corner cases, because I was trying to test as much as I could, and it often takes thought to come up with good corner cases. In the end, I found some things that Maxima crashed on when it tried to simplify, like
exp(sum([log(x^(1/n)) for n in range(1,1000)]))
but other than that, I found the entire system to be stable and useful. In a lot of easy cases, it's *much* faster than before, which makes me happy.
comment:17 Changed 14 years ago by
I am doing the following
- install pynac-1.0.17
- pull in latest changes
- sage -ba
- install dsage
- update pickle jar
- run testlong
on
- Linux x86, x86-64 and Itanium
- some of the above with gcc 4.4
- Solaris Sparc (32 bit)
- OSX 10.4 (PPC)
I am currently running testlong
, so we should know more in the morning (local time)
Cheers,
Michael
comment:18 Changed 14 years ago by
Ok, no joy: On Solaris/Sparc? this patchset causes a hang in maxima.py. Mike told me that William and him allegedly fixed the underlying issue (see the discussion about the semicolon at #6054), but it causes the hang. All Maxima related doctests pass on that machine (modulo two tiny numerical noise problems), so the patch on this ticket is to blame.
Cheers,
Michael
comment:19 Changed 14 years ago by
And the failing doctest is this one:
Trying: maxima('2+2')###line 751:_sage_ >>> maxima('2+2') Expecting: 4
Cheers,
Michael
comment:20 Changed 14 years ago by
Hmm, this looks suspicious, but reverting it does not fix the problem:
@@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ if self._expect is None: return r = randrange(2147483647) s = marker + str(r+1) - cmd = ''';sconcat("%s",(%s+1));\n'''%(marker,r) + cmd = '''0;sconcat("%s",(%s+1));\n'''%(marker,r) self._sendstr(cmd) try: self._expect_expr(timeout=0.5)
Running maxima('2+2')
in a loop does work, so I am not sure what the problem is yet.
Cheers,
Michael
comment:21 Changed 14 years ago by
Hmm, another thing:
cdef class Matrix_symbolic_dense(matrix_dense.Matrix_dense): r""" @@ -162,7 +161,7 @@ sage: cmp(m,m) 0 sage: cmp(m,3) - -1 + 1 """ return self._richcmp(right, op)
is cmp() in this case deterministic?
Cheers,
Michael
comment:22 Changed 14 years ago by
Summary: | [with patch, needs work] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system → [with patch, positive review] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system |
---|
Formal positive review by various other people not me. Followup should be directed to new tickets for 4.0 as long as it is open.
Cheers,
Michael
comment:23 Changed 14 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Merged in Sage 4.0.rc0.
Cheers,
Michael
comment:24 Changed 14 years ago by
Summary: | [with patch, positive review] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system → [with patch, positive review] switch from maxima to pynac for core symbolic manipulation system |
---|
See #6111 for refereeing of symbolics.
comment:25 Changed 6 years ago by
Report Upstream: | → N/A |
---|
Does anybody happen to remember why there is this strange condition involving inspect.ismethod
?
import inspect if not hasattr(_the_element,'_fast_callable_') or not inspect.ismethod(_the_element._fast_callable_): # only warn if _the_element is not dynamic from sage.misc.superseded import deprecation deprecation(5930, "Substitution using function-call syntax and unnamed arguments is deprecated and will be removed from a future release of Sage; you ca
Bug/Issue?: Control-C doesn't work in some cases.