[erlang-questions] [erlang-question] How to comprehend two lists synchronously?
Dmitry Demeshchuk
demeshchuk@REDACTED
Fri Nov 18 10:42:50 CET 2011
Just in case, if you don't do receive there, the process just dies and
undergoes garbage collecting. So it's necessary.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Dmitry Demeshchuk <demeshchuk@REDACTED> wrote:
> That's not the correct way. You were measuring the processes memory in
> the middle of calculations.
>
> 1> A = spawn(fun () -> test:a(), receive _ -> ok end end).
> <0.46.0>
> 2> B = spawn(fun () -> test:b(), receive _ -> ok end end).
> <0.48.0>
> 3> process_info(A, memory).
> {memory,391814792}
> 4> process_info(B, memory).
> {memory,401610112}
>
> Note that I waited for several seconds before entering commands 3 and 4.
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Barco You <barcojie@REDACTED> wrote:
>> Very strange! By using another measuring method as below I got that your
>> function is far better than mine in memory consumption.
>>
>> -module(test).
>> -export([a/0, b/0]).
>> a() ->
>> L = lists:seq(1, 10000000),
>> map2(fun (I, J) -> I + J end, L, L),
>> receive
>> stop ->
>> ok
>> end.
>> b() ->
>> L = lists:seq(1, 10000000),
>> map3(fun (I, J) -> I + J end, L, L),
>> receive
>> stop ->
>> ok
>> end.
>>
>> map2(Fun, [H1 | T1], [H2 | T2]) ->
>> [Fun(H1, H2) | map2(Fun, T1, T2)];
>> map2(_, [], []) ->
>> [].
>> map3(_Fun, [], []) ->
>> [];
>> map3(Fun, L1, L2) ->
>> map3(Fun, L1, L2, []).
>> map3(_Fun, [], [], L) ->
>> lists:reverse(L);
>> map3(Fun, [H1 | T1], [H2 | T2], L) ->
>> map3(Fun, T1, T2, [Fun(H1, H2) | L]).
>>
>> Eshell V5.8.4 (abort with ^G)
>> 1> A = spawn(test,a,[]).
>> <0.32.0>
>> 2> B = spawn(test,b,[]).
>> <0.34.0>
>> 3> erlang:process_info(A,memory).
>> {memory,176316700}
>> 4> erlang:process_info(B,memory).
>> {memory,306105040}
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Dmitry Demeshchuk <demeshchuk@REDACTED>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure it is so. Try running this function several times:
>>>
>>> memtest() ->
>>> erlang:garbage_collect(),
>>> M1 = proplists:get_value(total, erlang:memory()),
>>> a(),
>>> M2 = proplists:get_value(total, erlang:memory()),
>>> b(),
>>> M3 = proplists:get_value(total, erlang:memory()),
>>> {M2 - M1, M3 - M2}.
>>>
>>> The results are pretty the same.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Barco You <barcojie@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> > Umm! I don't think there would be some difference between times consumed
>>> > by
>>> > these two functions, but I will assume there are difference in memory
>>> > consumption.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> > <demeshchuk@REDACTED>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think it's meant that lists:reverse/1 is called at the end of the
>>> >> _optimized_ code.
>>> >>
>>> >> Here's the module code:
>>> >>
>>> >> -module(test).
>>> >> -export([a/0, b/0]).
>>> >>
>>> >> a() ->
>>> >> L = lists:seq(1, 10000000), map2(fun (I, J) -> I + J end, L, L).
>>> >>
>>> >> b() ->
>>> >> L = lists:seq(1, 10000000),
>>> >> map3(fun (I, J) -> I + J end, L, L).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> map2(Fun, [H1 | T1], [H2 | T2]) ->
>>> >> [Fun(H1, H2) | map2(Fun, T1, T2)];
>>> >> map2(_, [], []) ->
>>> >> [].
>>> >>
>>> >> map3(_Fun, [], []) ->
>>> >> [];
>>> >> map3(Fun, L1, L2) ->
>>> >> map3(Fun, L1, L2, []).
>>> >>
>>> >> map3(_Fun, [], [], L) ->
>>> >> lists:reverse(L);
>>> >> map3(Fun, [H1 | T1], [H2 | T2], L) ->
>>> >> map3(Fun, T1, T2, [Fun(H1, H2) | L])
>>> >>
>>> >> Try to call timer:tc/3 yourself.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Barco You <barcojie@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> >> > According to the instruction attached by Ulf, the body-recursive and
>>> >> > tail-recursive list function will be the same in consuming memory
>>> >> > only
>>> >> > when
>>> >> > they call lists:reverse/1 at the end.
>>> >> > So, I don't know how did you do the benchmarks. Did you compare these
>>> >> > two
>>> >> > methods with big enough lists?
>>> >> > Or, I misunderstand the optimization instructions?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > BR,
>>> >> > Barco
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> >> > <demeshchuk@REDACTED>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Okay, I admit, this isn't an "honest" tail-recursed function, since
>>> >> >> a
>>> >> >> list concatenation operator is going to be called at the end.
>>> >> >> However,
>>> >> >> Erlang compiler optimizes such cases and converts them to
>>> >> >> tail-recursive:
>>> >> >> http://www.erlang.org/doc/efficiency_guide/myths.html#tail_recursive
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Also, I've ran benchmarks with both implementations: mine and yours.
>>> >> >> And they result in the same performance.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Barco You <barcojie@REDACTED>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > Yes, Ryan's suggestion is a good generic solution for n lists and
>>> >> >> > it's
>>> >> >> > tail-recursed.
>>> >> >> > Hi Dmitry,
>>> >> >> > Your version is just recursed but not tail-recursed, because your
>>> >> >> > function
>>> >> >> > needs a piece of memory to stack the intermediate result for every
>>> >> >> > round
>>> >> >> > of
>>> >> >> > recursive calls. To be tail-recursed, the recursive calls should
>>> >> >> > eliminate
>>> >> >> > the linearly-increased memory consumption by adding an extra
>>> >> >> > variable
>>> >> >> > (accumulator) and let the recursive function call it alone for
>>> >> >> > every
>>> >> >> > round.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> >> >> > <demeshchuk@REDACTED>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Hi, Barco.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Why do you think my version isn't tail-recursed? :) Take a look
>>> >> >> >> at
>>> >> >> >> lists:map/2 implementation, for example. It's just the same.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> List comprehensions just serve different purpose: for
>>> >> >> >> combinations
>>> >> >> >> from multiple list sources. My guess is that people need this
>>> >> >> >> operation more often than mapping over multiple list. Another
>>> >> >> >> problem
>>> >> >> >> is that you should be sure that all those lists have the same
>>> >> >> >> length.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Barco You <barcojie@REDACTED>
>>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > Hi Dmitry,
>>> >> >> >> > What your suggested can really solve my problem, but it's not
>>> >> >> >> > Tail-Recursion. The tail-recursed solution should look like
>>> >> >> >> > this;
>>> >> >> >> > map2(_Fun, [], []) ->
>>> >> >> >> > [];
>>> >> >> >> > map2(Fun, L1, L2) ->
>>> >> >> >> > map2(Fun, L1, L2, []).
>>> >> >> >> > map2(_Fun, [], [], L) ->
>>> >> >> >> > lists:reverse(L);
>>> >> >> >> > map2(Fun, [H1 | T1], [H2 | T2], L) ->
>>> >> >> >> > map2(Fun, T1, T2, [Fun(H1, H2) | L]).
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > However, I'm still disappointed with the list comprehension
>>> >> >> >> > which
>>> >> >> >> > is
>>> >> >> >> > different from what I intuitively imagine about it.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Regards,
>>> >> >> >> > Barco
>>> >> >> >> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> >> >> >> > <demeshchuk@REDACTED>
>>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> My guess is you have to zip them together, or just write a
>>> >> >> >> >> tail-recursed function:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> map2(Fun, [H1 | T1], [H2 | T2]) ->
>>> >> >> >> >> [Fun(H1, H2) | map2(Fun, T1, T2)];
>>> >> >> >> >> map2(Fun, [], []) ->
>>> >> >> >> >> [].
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> The second option definitely isn't a list comprehension, but
>>> >> >> >> >> it
>>> >> >> >> >> requires less memory and has lesser complexity.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Barco You
>>> >> >> >> >> <barcojie@REDACTED>
>>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> > Dear Erlangers,
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > I hope to get a list from two lists like this:
>>> >> >> >> >> > [{a1,b1}, {a2,b2}, {a3,b3}] <- [a1, a2 a3], [b1,
>>> >> >> >> >> > b2,
>>> >> >> >> >> > b3].
>>> >> >> >> >> > But if I use list comprehension, I got:
>>> >> >> >> >> > 10> [{D1,D2} || D1 <- [a1,a2,a3], D2 <- [b1,b2,b3]].
>>> >> >> >> >> > [{a1,b1},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a1,b2},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a1,b3},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a2,b1},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a2,b2},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a2,b3},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a3,b1},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a3,b2},
>>> >> >> >> >> > {a3,b3}]
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > So, my questions is how to comprehend list in synchronous
>>> >> >> >> >> > way
>>> >> >> >> >> > in
>>> >> >> >> >> > order
>>> >> >> >> >> > to
>>> >> >> >> >> > get what I want, rather than to compose the elements from
>>> >> >> >> >> > two
>>> >> >> >> >> > lists
>>> >> >> >> >> > in
>>> >> >> >> >> > all
>>> >> >> >> >> > possible situations.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > Thank you,
>>> >> >> >> >> > Barco
>>> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> >> >> > erlang-questions mailing list
>>> >> >> >> >> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>> >> >> >> >> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> >> Best regards,
>>> >> >> >> >> Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> Best regards,
>>> >> >> >> Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Best regards,
>>> >> >> Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >> Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dmitry Demeshchuk
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Demeshchuk
>
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Demeshchuk
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list