Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: <HIDDEN>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Codistributed arrays performance
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:42:02 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <hdcj6q$qcc$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <hd70vh$n62$1@fred.mathworks.com> <ytwws20dqco.fsf@uk-eellis-deb5-64.mathworks.co.uk> <ytw7htzeou2.fsf@uk-eellis-deb5-64.mathworks.co.uk> <hd9m1i$oa3$1@fred.mathworks.com> <ytw3a4mer8y.fsf@uk-eellis-deb5-64.mathworks.co.uk>
Reply-To: <HIDDEN>
NNTP-Posting-Host: webapp-05-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1257885722 27020 172.30.248.35 (10 Nov 2009 20:42:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:42:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 990459
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:583966


Edric M Ellis <eellis@mathworks.com> wrote in message <ytw3a4mer8y.fsf@uk-eellis-deb5-64.mathworks.co.uk>...
> "Scott " <lorentz-spampadded@fastmail.fm> writes:
> 
> > Ah, I see, good to know. Is parfor then the route to better performance when
> > applicable, or is the parallel toolbox really just for large data sets at this
> > point?
> 
> In general, if a problem can be addressed using parfor, it will almost certainly
> be quicker as there are fewer synchronisation points for communication, and the
> dynamic scheduling attempts to get better load-balancing.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Edric.

My code is highly vectorized with very few for-loops. Would you expect the parfor performance to exceed that of a vectorized multi-threaded computation for large datasets? Or should I be considering semi-vectorized coding to take greater advantage of parfor? Seems like the array indexing necessary for that would slow it down, but I don't have a good handle on the performance trade-offs.