Skip to content

Speed up metrics computation by optimizing segment validation #1338

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Aug 1, 2023

Conversation

Mr-Geekman
Copy link
Contributor

@Mr-Geekman Mr-Geekman commented Jul 28, 2023

Before submitting (must do checklist)

  • Did you read the contribution guide?
  • Did you update the docs? We use Numpy format for all the methods and classes.
  • Did you write any new necessary tests?
  • Did you update the CHANGELOG?

Proposed Changes

  1. Optimize _validate_segment_columns
  2. Remove redundant dataframe selection in metrics computation.

Closing issues

Closes #1336.

@Mr-Geekman Mr-Geekman self-assigned this Jul 28, 2023
@Mr-Geekman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Script for testing:

import time
import json

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from loguru import logger

from etna.models import NaiveModel
from etna.datasets import TSDataset, generate_ar_df
from etna.metrics import MAE
from etna.pipeline import Pipeline

HORIZON = 14


def make_df(num_segments: int, num_features: int, num_periods: int, random_state: int = 0) -> pd.DataFrame:
    rng = np.random.default_rng(random_state)
    df = generate_ar_df(
        periods=num_periods, start_time="2020-01-01", n_segments=num_segments
    )

    for i in range(num_features):
        # add int column
        df[f"new_int_{i}"] = rng.integers(low=-100, high=100, size=df.shape[0])

    return df


def check_time(num_segments: int, num_features: int, num_periods: int = 365):
    df = make_df(num_segments=num_segments, num_features=num_features, num_periods=num_periods)
    df_wide = TSDataset.to_dataset(df)
    ts = TSDataset(df=df_wide, freq="D")

    model = NaiveModel(lag=1)
    transforms = []
    pipeline = Pipeline(model=model, transforms=transforms, horizon=HORIZON)

    start_time = time.perf_counter()
    metrics, _, _ = pipeline.backtest(ts=ts, metrics=[MAE()], n_folds=3)
    elapsed_time = time.perf_counter() - start_time

    return elapsed_time


def main():
    num_segments = [10, 100, 1000, 10_000]
    num_features = [0, 3, 10]

    results = []
    for cur_num_segments in num_segments:
        for cur_num_features in num_features:
            time_result = check_time(num_segments=cur_num_segments, num_features=cur_num_features)
            record = {"num_segments": cur_num_segments, "num_features": cur_num_features, "time": time_result}
            results.append(record)
            logger.info(json.dumps(record))

    json.dump(results, open("records_2.json", "w"), indent=2)


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

Results without changes:

[
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.3590500030000001
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.4593144890000005
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.3713757409999978
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 1.2579138940000014
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 1.4334653250000002
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 1.562795714
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 9.964996322999998
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 13.49794635
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 15.799086332999998
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 104.504586417
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 235.44386497699998
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 281.90819511
  }
]

Results with changes in _validate_segment_columns:

[
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.21762080500000014
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.25818068400000005
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.2985194660000001
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.7977682599999998
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.8086340990000007
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.9596903270000006
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 6.304263003999999
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 6.816117811000002
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 8.042914625000002
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 62.120309238999994
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 70.261712954
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 85.14670703500002
  }
]

Results with removing extra dataframe selection:

[
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.21787695200000012
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.2454114409999999
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.27747879200000014
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.6796172610000006
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.678246498
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.7758322989999993
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 4.967111137000002
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 5.283647876000002
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 6.464345726000001
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 49.259913931999996
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 54.42493236100002
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 66.683967212
  }
]

@Mr-Geekman
Copy link
Contributor Author

There was also a profiling using py-spy with a script:

import time
import json

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from loguru import logger

from etna.models import NaiveModel
from etna.datasets import TSDataset, generate_ar_df
from etna.metrics import MAE
from etna.pipeline import Pipeline

HORIZON = 14


def make_df(num_segments: int, num_features: int, num_periods: int, random_state: int = 0) -> pd.DataFrame:
    rng = np.random.default_rng(random_state)
    df = generate_ar_df(
        periods=num_periods, start_time="2020-01-01", n_segments=num_segments
    )

    for i in range(num_features):
        # add int column
        df[f"new_int_{i}"] = rng.integers(low=-100, high=100, size=df.shape[0])

    return df


def check_time(num_segments: int, num_features: int, num_periods: int = 365):
    df = make_df(num_segments=num_segments, num_features=num_features, num_periods=num_periods)
    df_wide = TSDataset.to_dataset(df)
    ts = TSDataset(df=df_wide, freq="D")

    model = NaiveModel(lag=1)
    transforms = []
    pipeline = Pipeline(model=model, transforms=transforms, horizon=HORIZON)

    start_time = time.perf_counter()
    metrics, _, _ = pipeline.backtest(ts=ts, metrics=[MAE()], n_folds=3)
    elapsed_time = time.perf_counter() - start_time

    return elapsed_time


def main():
    check_time(num_segments=10_000, num_features=3)


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

Results look like this:
Снимок экрана 2023-07-28 в 11 23 36

Key notions:

  • Metric computation is still takes a lot of time, about 44%.
  • TSDataset.describe takes a lot of time, about 25%.

@Mr-Geekman Mr-Geekman changed the title Improve speed of metrics computation Optimize metrics computation Jul 28, 2023
@Mr-Geekman Mr-Geekman changed the title Optimize metrics computation Speed up metrics computation by optimizing segment validation Jul 28, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 28, 2023

@github-actions github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pull request July 28, 2023 08:32 Inactive
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jul 28, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #1338 (3ddb1da) into master (cceb500) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1338      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.09%   89.12%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         204      204              
  Lines       12642    12665      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits        11264    11288      +24     
+ Misses       1378     1377       -1     
Files Changed Coverage Δ
etna/metrics/base.py 95.91% <100.00%> (+2.24%) ⬆️
etna/metrics/intervals_metrics.py 98.27% <100.00%> (+0.12%) ⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Copy link
Collaborator

@alex-hse-repository alex-hse-repository left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We actually need to investigate it deeper. Places to speed up:

  1. Per-segment iteration here -- do we really need to check each segment separately? I guess this is done only for the convenient error msg
  2. We should validate the timestamps and NaNs in vectorized way here -- first of all check the existence of NaNs in passed datasets and then compare the index. We don't need to do it in per-segment fashion. This way we don't need to do dropna and _validate_timestamp_columns in the loop
  3. For the built-in metrics (MAE, SMAPE...) we can implement the vectorized version of metric_fn, this might be hard to implement without changing the base classes. At least try to add @ngit decorator to speed up the computation. One sollution is to create the separate class VectorizedMetric(Metric) and override __call__.

# Conflicts:
#	CHANGELOG.md
@Mr-Geekman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Results after reworking _validate_timestamp_columns:

[
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.2025824759999999
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.24138570799999925
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.272586608000001
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.6173706429999992
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.622621066999999
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.7178853730000014
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 4.244795499
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 4.704148591000001
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 5.926159300000002
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 40.73026384199999
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 46.77938691599999
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 60.692529713
  }
]

@Mr-Geekman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Results after iteration optimization:

[
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.22758442000000034
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.303228195
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.2589208110000003
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 0.5286539329999993
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 0.575157707999999
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 100,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 0.6489074320000014
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 3.4659758200000006
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 4.007518799999998
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 1000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 5.0106977860000015
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 0,
    "time": 33.155186359
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 3,
    "time": 39.375860941000006
  },
  {
    "num_segments": 10000,
    "num_features": 10,
    "time": 53.37710269499999
  }
]

@github-actions github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pull request July 31, 2023 12:17 Inactive
df_true = y_true.df.loc[:, pd.IndexSlice[:, "target"]].sort_index(axis=1)
df_pred = y_pred.df.loc[:, pd.IndexSlice[:, "target"]].sort_index(axis=1)

df_true_isna = df_true.isna()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can't we just ckech that both of df_true_isna and df_pred_isna sum to 0? As I understand we also need to compare the index here, does equals do it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure that your suggested solution gives the same result as the initial solution. In initial solution we select segment from ts, it uses first_valid_index under the hood and skips the first NaNs.

Here we apply first_valid_index on the whole dataframe and it skips only the nans that are present in all segments. So if segments start at different timestamps some of the segments will have NaNs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

DataFrame.equals compares taking into account index.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, I made a mistake in initial solution we check timestamps after dropna. So we can't really check that sum of isna equals to true. It will give not equivalent solution.
If we want to do not-equivalent check we should discuss what kind of check do we really want here, because I'm not really sure that existing type of check is reasonable enough.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here we need to check the following things:

  1. There are no NaNs in the datasets
  2. Index of the datasets are the same

metrics_per_segment[segment] = self.metric_fn(
y_true=y_true[:, segment, "target"].values, y_pred=y_pred[:, segment, "target"].values, **self.kwargs
)
segments = df_true.columns.get_level_values("segment").unique()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't it be sorted as index in the dataframe is sorted?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

May be we need test for such behaviour(input datasets have unsorted segments)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it will be sorted because we sorted index of df_true. Also we have a guarantee that unique returns values in the order of its appearance.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, I'll try to add a test on this.

@github-actions github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pull request August 1, 2023 12:58 Inactive
@alex-hse-repository alex-hse-repository merged commit ddc1711 into master Aug 1, 2023
12 checks passed
@Mr-Geekman Mr-Geekman deleted the issue-1336 branch August 4, 2023 09:45
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Examine slow metrics computation
3 participants