CODEWITHSUNDEEP
pythonpython-3.xmultiprocessingpython-multiprocessing
ds_user
ds_user

Reputation: 2179

python - multiprocessing is slower than sequential

this is my first multiprocessing implementation, i have executed my code in sequential approach and it took me a minute to process around 30seconds to process 20 records. But i created a dictionary with each key having a set of records, and tried to apply the function using pool.map for every key. Now it is taking more than 2 minute to process though i am assigining each core for each process. Could someone help me to optimize this.

def f(values):
    data1 = itertools.combinations(values,2)
    tuple_attr =('Age', 'Workclass', 'Fnlwgt', 'Education', 'Education-num', 'marital-status', 'Occupation', 'Relationship', 'Race', 'Sex', 'Capital-gain', 'Capital-loss', 'Hours-per-week', 'Native country', 'Probability', 'Id')
    new = ((tuple_attr[i] for i, t in enumerate(zip(*pair)) if t[0]!=t[1]) for pair in data1)
    skt = set(frozenset(temp) for temp in new)
    newset = set(s for s in skt if not any(p < s for p in skt))

    empty = frozenset(" ")
    tr_x = set(frozenset(i) for i in empty)
    tr = set(frozenset(i) for i in empty)
    for e in newset:
        tr.clear()
        tr = tr.union(tr_x)
        tr_x.clear()
        for x in tr:
            for a in e:
                if x == empty:
                    tmp = frozenset(frozenset([a]))
                    tr_x = tr_x.union([tmp])
                else : 
                    tmp = frozenset(frozenset([a]).union(x))
                    tr_x = tr_x.union([tmp])
        tr.clear()
        tr = tr.union(tr_x)
        tr = set(l for l in tr if not any(m < l for m in tr))

    return tr

def main():
    p = Pool(len(data)) #number of processes = number of CPUs
    keys, values= zip(*data.items()) #ordered keys and values
    processed_values= p.map( f, values )
    result= dict( zip(keys, processed_values ) ) 
    p.close() # no more tasks
    p.join()  # wrap up current tasks
    print(result)


if __name__ == '__main__':
    import csv
    dicchunk = {*****} #my dictionary
    main()

Upvotes: 1

Views: 3387

Answers (1)

dano
dano

Reputation: 94881

I created a test program to run this once with multiprocessing, and once without:

def main(data):
    p = Pool(len(data)) #number of processes = number of CPUs
    keys, values= zip(*data.items()) #ordered keys and values
    start = time.time()
    processed_values= p.map( f, values )
    result= dict( zip(keys, processed_values ) ) 
    print("multi: {}".format(time.time() - start))
    p.close() # no more tasks
    p.join()  # wrap up current tasks

    start = time.time()
    processed_values = map(f, values)
    result2 = dict( zip(keys, processed_values ) ) 
    print("non-multi: {}".format(time.time() - start))
    assert(result == result2)

Here's the output:

multi: 191.249588966
non-multi: 225.774535179

multiprocessing is faster, but not by as much as you might expect. The reason for that is some of the sub-lists take much (several minutes) longer to finish than others. You'll never be faster than however long it takes to process the largest sub-list.

I added some tracing to the worker function to demonstrate this. I saved the time at the start of the worker, and the print it out at the end. Here's the output:

<Process(PoolWorker-4, started daemon)> is done. Took 0.940237998962 seconds
<Process(PoolWorker-2, started daemon)> is done. Took 1.28068685532 seconds
<Process(PoolWorker-1, started daemon)> is done. Took 42.9250118732 seconds
<Process(PoolWorker-3, started daemon)> is done. Took 193.635578156 seconds

As you can see, the workers are doing very unequal amounts of work, so you're only saving about 44 seconds vs being sequential.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions