*This notebook first appeared as a*
*post*
*by Jake Vanderplas on the blog*
*Pythonic Perambulations*

Last summer I wrote a [post](http://jakevdp.github.io/blog/2012/08/24/numba-vs-cython/)
comparing the performance of [Numba](http://numba.pydata.org/) and [Cython](http://cython.org/)
for optimizing array-based computation. Since posting, the page has received thousands of hits,
and resulted in a number of interesting discussions.
But in the meantime, the Numba package has come a long way both in its interface and its
performance.
Here I want to revisit those timing comparisons with a more recent Numba release, using the newer
and more convenient ``autojit`` syntax, and also add in a few additional benchmarks for
completeness. I've also written this post entirely within an IPython notebook, so it can be
easily downloaded and modified.
As before, I'll use a **pairwise distance** function. This will take an array representing
``M`` points in ``N`` dimensions, and return the ``M x M`` matrix of pairwise distances.
This is a nice test function for a few reasons. First of all, it's a very clean and
well-defined test. Second of all, it illustrates the kind of array-based operation that
is common in statistics, datamining, and machine learning. Third, it is a function that
results in large memory consumption if the standard numpy broadcasting approach is used
(it requires a temporary array containing ``M * M * N`` elements), making it a good
candidate for an alternate approach.

We'll start by defining the array which we'll use for the benchmarks: one thousand points in three dimensions.

In [1]:

```
import numpy as np
X = np.random.random((1000, 3))
```

In [2]:

```
def pairwise_numpy(X):
return np.sqrt(((X[:, None, :] - X) ** 2).sum(-1))
%timeit pairwise_numpy(X)
```

In [3]:

```
def pairwise_python(X):
M = X.shape[0]
N = X.shape[1]
D = np.empty((M, M), dtype=np.float)
for i in range(M):
for j in range(M):
d = 0.0
for k in range(N):
tmp = X[i, k] - X[j, k]
d += tmp * tmp
D[i, j] = np.sqrt(d)
return D
%timeit pairwise_python(X)
```

As we see, it is over 100 times slower than the numpy broadcasting approach! This is due to Python's dynamic type checking, which can drastically slow down nested loops. With these two solutions, we're left with a tradeoff between efficiency of computation and efficiency of memory usage. This is where tools like Numba and Cython become vital

I should note that there exist alternative Python interpreters which improve on the computational inefficiency of the Python run-time, one of which is the popular PyPy project. PyPy is extremely interesting. However, it's currently all but useless for scientific applications, because it does not support NumPy, and by extension cannot run code based on SciPy, scikit-learn, matplotlib, or virtually any other package that makes Python a useful tool for scientific computing. For that reason, I won't consider PyPy here.

Numba is an LLVM compiler for python code, which allows code written in Python to be converted to highly efficient compiled code in real-time. Due to its dependencies, compiling it can be a challenge. To experiment with Numba, I recommend using a local installation of Anaconda, the free cross-platform Python distribution which includes Numba and all its prerequisites within a single easy-to-install package.

Numba is extremely simple to use. We just wrap our python function with `autojit`

(JIT stands
for "just in time" compilation) to automatically create an efficient, compiled version of the function:

In [4]:

```
from numba import double
from numba.decorators import jit, autojit
pairwise_numba = autojit(pairwise_python)
%timeit pairwise_numba(X)
```

In [5]:

```
%load_ext cythonmagic
```

In [6]:

```
%%cython
import numpy as np
cimport cython
from libc.math cimport sqrt
@cython.boundscheck(False)
@cython.wraparound(False)
def pairwise_cython(double[:, ::1] X):
cdef int M = X.shape[0]
cdef int N = X.shape[1]
cdef double tmp, d
cdef double[:, ::1] D = np.empty((M, M), dtype=np.float64)
for i in range(M):
for j in range(M):
d = 0.0
for k in range(N):
tmp = X[i, k] - X[j, k]
d += tmp * tmp
D[i, j] = sqrt(d)
return np.asarray(D)
```

In [7]:

```
%timeit pairwise_cython(X)
```

*slower* than
the result of the simple Numba decorator! I should emphasize here that I have
years of experience with Cython, and in this function I've used every Cython
optimization there is
(if any Cython super-experts are out there and would like to correct me
on that, please let me know in the blog comment thread!) By comparison, the Numba
version is a simple, unadorned wrapper around plainly-written Python code.

`f2py`

package to interface with the function. We can write the function
as follows:

In [8]:

```
%%file pairwise_fort.f
subroutine pairwise_fort(X,D,m,n)
integer :: n,m
double precision, intent(in) :: X(m,n)
double precision, intent(out) :: D(m,m)
integer :: i,j,k
double precision :: r
do i = 1,m
do j = 1,m
r = 0
do k = 1,n
r = r + (X(i,k) - X(j,k)) * (X(i,k) - X(j,k))
end do
D(i,j) = sqrt(r)
end do
end do
end subroutine pairwise_fort
```

`/dev/null`

(note: I
tested this on Linux, and it may have to be modified for Mac or Windows).

In [9]:

```
# Compile the Fortran with f2py.
# We'll direct the output into /dev/null so it doesn't fill the screen
!f2py -c pairwise_fort.f -m pairwise_fort > /dev/null
```

In [10]:

```
from pairwise_fort import pairwise_fort
XF = np.asarray(X, order='F')
%timeit pairwise_fort(XF)
```

The result is nearly a factor of two slower than the Cython and Numba versions.

Now, I should note here that I am most definitely **not** an expert on Fortran, so
there may very well be optimizations missing from the above code. If you see any
obvious problems here, please let me know in the blog comments.

In [11]:

```
from scipy.spatial.distance import cdist
%timeit cdist(X, X)
```

`cdist`

is about 50% slower than Numba.

`euclidean_distances`

function, works on sparse
matrices as well as numpy arrays, and is implemented in Cython:

In [12]:

```
from sklearn.metrics import euclidean_distances
%timeit euclidean_distances(X, X)
```

`euclidean_distances`

is several times slower than the Numba pairwise function
on dense arrays.

Out of all the above pairwise distance methods, unadorned Numba is the clear winner, with highly-optimized Cython coming in a close second. Both beat out the other options by a large amount.

As a summary of the results, we'll create a bar-chart to visualize the timings:

*Edit: I changed the "fortran" label to "fortran/f2py" to make clear that this is not raw Fortran.*

In [13]:

```
%pylab inline
```

In [14]:

```
labels = ['python\nloop', 'numpy\nbroadc.', 'sklearn', 'fortran/\nf2py', 'scipy', 'cython', 'numba']
timings = [13.4, 0.111, 0.0356, 0.0167, 0.0129, 0.00987, 0.00912]
x = np.arange(len(labels))
ax = plt.axes(xticks=x, yscale='log')
ax.bar(x - 0.3, timings, width=0.6, alpha=0.4, bottom=1E-6)
ax.grid()
ax.set_xlim(-0.5, len(labels) - 0.5)
ax.set_ylim(1E-3, 1E2)
ax.xaxis.set_major_formatter(plt.FuncFormatter(lambda i, loc: labels[int(i)]))
ax.set_ylabel('time (s)')
ax.set_title("Pairwise Distance Timings")
```

Out[14]:

Note that this is log-scaled, so the vertical space between two grid lines indicates a factor of 10 difference in computation time!

When I compared Cython and Numba last August, I found that Cython was about
30% faster than Numba. Since then, Numba has had a few more releases, and both
the interface and the performance has improved. On
top of being much easier to use (i.e. automatic type inference by `autojit`

)
it's now about 50% faster, and is even a few percent faster than the Cython option.

And though I've seen similar things for months, I'm still incredibly impressed by the results enabled by Numba: *a single function decorator results in a 1300x speedup of simple Python code.* I'm becoming more and more convinced that Numba is the future of fast scientific computing in Python.