We Keep Coding

Numpy argmax source

I can't seem to find the code for numpy argmax.
The source link in the docs lead me to here, which doesn't have any actual code.
I went through every function that mentions argmax using the github search tool and still no luck. I'm sure I'm missing something.
Can someone lead me in the right direction?
Thanks

Numpy is written in C. It uses a template engine that parsing some comments to generate many versions of the same generic function (typically for many different types). This tool is very helpful to generate fast code since the C language does not provide (proper) templates unlike C++ for example. However, it also make the code more cryptic than necessary since the name of the function is often generated. For example, generic functions names can look like #TYPE#_#OP# where #TYPE# and #OP# are two macros that can take different values each. On top of all of this, the CPython binding also make the code more complex since C functions have to be wrapped to be called from a CPython code with complex arrays (possibly with a high amount of dimensions and custom user types) and CPython arguments to decode.
_PyArray_ArgMinMaxCommon is a quite good entry point but it is only a wrapping function and not the main computing one. It is only useful if you plan to change the prototype of the Numpy function from Python.
The main computational function can be found here. The comment just above the function is the one used to generate the variants of the functions (eg. CDOUBLE_argmax). Note that there are some alternative specific implementation for alternative type below the main one like OBJECT_argmax since CPython objects and strings must be computed a bit differently. Thank you for contributing to Numpy.

As mentioned in the comments, you'll likely find what you are searching in the C code implementation (here under _PyArray_ArgMinMaxCommon). The code itself can be very convoluted, so if your intent was to open an issue on numpy with a broad idea, I would do it on the page you linked anyway.

Why did the numpy core size shrink from 1.14.0 to 1.14.1?

When creating an AWS lambda package I noticed that the ZIP became a lot smaller when I updated from numpy 1.14.0 to 1.14.3. From 24.6MB to 8.4MB.
The directory numpy/random went from 4.3MB to 1.2MB, according to Ubuntus Disc Usage analyzer. When I, however, compare the directories with meld they seem to be identical. So I had a closer look at this and found that only one file (mtrand.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so) differs that much. I guess it is a similar reason why the core became smaller.
Could somebody explain why this became so much smaller?

It appears that the difference is in the debug symbols. Perhaps one was built with a higher level of debug symbols than the other, or perhaps the smaller one was built with compressed debug info (a relatively new feature). One way to find out more would be to inspect the compiler and linker flags used during each build, or try to build it yourself.

Can I program Nvidia's CUDA using only Python or do I have to learn C?

I guess the question speaks for itself. I'm interested in doing some serious computations but am not a programmer by trade. I can string enough python together to get done what I want. But can I write a program in python and have the GPU execute it using CUDA? Or do I have to use some mix of python and C?
The examples on Klockner's (sp) "pyCUDA" webpage had a mix of both python and C, so I'm not sure what the answer is.
If anyone wants to chime in about Opencl, feel free. I heard about this CUDA business only a couple of weeks ago and didn't know you could use your video cards like this.

You should take a look at CUDAmat and Theano. Both are approaches to writing code that executes on the GPU without really having to know much about GPU programming.

I believe that, with PyCUDA, your computational kernels will always have to be written as "CUDA C Code". PyCUDA takes charge of a lot of otherwise-tedious book-keeping, but does not build computational CUDA kernels from Python code.

pyopencl offers an interesting alternative to PyCUDA. It is described as a "sister project" to PyCUDA. It is a complete wrapper around OpenCL's API.
As far as I understand, OpenCL has the advantage of running on GPUs beyond Nvidia's.

Great answers already, but another option is Clyther. It will let you write OpenCL programs without even using C, by compiling a subset of Python into OpenCL kernels.

A promising library is Copperhead (alternative link), you just need to decorate the function that you want to be run by the GPU (and then you can opt-in / opt-out it to see what's best between cpu or gpu for that function)

There is a good, basic set of math constructs with compute kernels already written that can be accessed through pyCUDA's cumath module. If you want to do more involved or specific/custom stuff you will have to write a touch of C in the kernel definition, but the nice thing about pyCUDA is that it will do the heavy C-lifting for you; it does a lot of meta-programming on the back-end so you don't have to worry about serious C programming, just the little pieces. One of the examples given is a Map/Reduce kernel to calculate the dot product:
dot_krnl = ReductionKernel(np.float32, neutral="0",
reduce_expr="a+b",
map_expr="x[i]*y[i]",
arguments="float *x, float *y")
The little snippets of code inside each of those arguments are C lines, but it actually writes the program for you. the ReductionKernel is a custom kernel type for map/reducish type functions, but there are different types. The examples portion of the official pyCUDA documentation goes into more detail.
Good luck!

Scikits CUDA package could be a better option, provided that it doesn't require any low-level knowledge or C code for any operation that can be represented as numpy array manipulation.

I was wondering the same thing and carried a few searches. I found the article linked below which seems to answer your question. However, you asked this back in 2014 and the Nvidia article does not have a date.
https://developer.nvidia.com/how-to-cuda-python
The video goes through the set up, an initial example and, quite importantly, profiliing. However, I do not know if you can implement all of the usual general compute patterns. I would think you can because as far as I could there are no limitations in NumPy.

Is MATLAB faster than Python?

I want to compute magnetic fields of some conductors using the Biot–Savart law and I want to use a 1000x1000x1000 matrix. Before I use MATLAB, but now I want to use Python. Is Python slower than MATLAB ? How can I make Python faster?
EDIT:
Maybe the best way is to compute the big array with C/C++ and then transfering them to Python. I want to visualise then with VPython.
EDIT2: Which is better in my case: C or C++?

You might find some useful results at the bottom of this link
http://wiki.scipy.org/PerformancePython
From the introduction,
A comparison of weave with NumPy, Pyrex, Psyco, Fortran (77 and 90) and C++ for solving Laplace's equation.
It also compares MATLAB and seems to show similar speeds to when using Python and NumPy.
Of course this is only a specific example, your application might be allow better or worse performance. There is no harm in running the same test on both and comparing.
You can also compile NumPy with optimized libraries such as ATLAS which provides some BLAS/LAPACK routines. These should be of comparable speed to MATLAB.
I'm not sure if the NumPy downloads are already built against it, but I think ATLAS will tune libraries to your system if you compile NumPy,
http://www.scipy.org/Installing_SciPy/Windows
The link has more details on what is required under the Windows platform.
EDIT:
If you want to find out what performs better, C or C++, it might be worth asking a new question. Although from the link above C++ has best performance. Other solutions are quite close too i.e. Pyrex, Python/Fortran (using f2py) and inline C++.
The only matrix algebra under C++ I have ever done was using MTL and implementing an Extended Kalman Filter. I guess, though, in essence it depends on the libraries you are using LAPACK/BLAS and how well optimised it is.
This link has a list of object-oriented numerical packages for many languages.
http://www.oonumerics.org/oon/

NumPy and MATLAB both use an underlying BLAS implementation for standard linear algebra operations. For some time both used ATLAS, but nowadays MATLAB apparently also comes with other implementations like Intel's Math Kernel Library (MKL). Which one is faster by how much depends on the system and how the BLAS implementation was compiled. You can also compile NumPy with MKL and Enthought is working on MKL support for their Python distribution (see their roadmap). Here is also a recent interesting blog post about this.
On the other hand, if you need more specialized operations or data structures then both Python and MATLAB offer you various ways for optimization (like Cython, PyCUDA,...).
Edit: I corrected this answer to take into account different BLAS implementations. I hope it is now a fair representation of the current situation.

The only valid test is to benchmark it. It really depends on what your platform is, and how well the Biot-Savart Law maps to Matlab or NumPy/SciPy built-in operations.
As for making Python faster, Google's working on Unladen Swallow, a JIT compiler for Python. There are probably other projects like this as well.

As per your edit 2, I recommend very strongly that you use Fortran because you can leverage the available linear algebra subroutines (Lapack and Blas) and it is way simpler than C/C++ for matrix computations.
If you prefer to go with a C/C++ approach, I would use C, because you presumably need raw performance on a presumably simple interface (matrix computations tend to have simple interfaces and complex algorithms).
If, however, you decide to go with C++, you can use the TNT (the Template Numerical Toolkit, the C++ implementation of Lapack).
Good luck.

If you're just using Python (with NumPy), it may be slower, depending on which pieces you use, whether or not you have optimized linear algebra libraries installed, and how well you know how to take advantage of NumPy.
To make it faster, there are a few things you can do. There is a tool called Cython that allows you to add type declarations to Python code and translate it into a Python extension module in C. How much benefit this gets you depends a bit on how diligent you are with your type declarations - if you don't add any at all, you won't see much of any benefit. Cython also has support for NumPy types, though these are a bit more complicated than other types.
If you have a good graphics card and are willing to learn a bit about GPU computing, PyCUDA can also help. (If you don't have an nvidia graphics card, I hear there is a PyOpenCL in the works as well). I don't know your problem domain, but if it can be mapped into a CUDA problem then it should be able to handle your 10^9 elements nicely.

And here is an updated "comparison" between MATLAB and NumPy/MKL based on some linear algebra functions:
http://dpinte.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/numpymkl-vs-matlab-performance/
The dot product is not that slow ;-)

I couldn't find much hard numbers to answer this same question so I went ahead and did the testing myself. The results, scripts, and data sets used are all available here on my post on MATLAB vs Python speed for vibration analysis.
Long story short, the FFT function in MATLAB is better than Python but you can do some simple manipulation to get comparable results and speed. I also found that importing data was faster in Python compared to MATLAB (even for MAT files using the scipy.io).

I would also like to point out that Python (+NumPy) can easily interface with Fortran via the F2Py module, which basically nets you native Fortran speeds on the pieces of code you offload into it.

Are there any matrix math modules compatible with Python 3.x?

When I began this project, I thought it would be easy to get libraries for common stuff like matrix math, so I chose to work in Python 3.1- it being the most recent, updated version of the language. Unfortunately, NumPy is only compatible with 2.5 and 2.6 and seems to be the only game in town! Even other stuff that I turned up like gameobjects seemed to be based on NumPy and therefore incompatible with 3.x as well.
Does anyone out there know of a matrix library that is compatible with 3? I need to be able to do the following: matrix add, subtract, multiply, scalar multiply, inverse, transpose, and determinant. I've been looking all day and all roads seem to lead back to NumPy. I even tried this module: http://www.nightmare.com/squirl/python-ext/misc/matrix.py but it too is for 2.x. Even after converting it using the 2to3 tool, I can't get the yarn module that it refers to (and is probably itself 2.x).
Any help is hugely appreciated.

Given that a large portion of those interested in this sort of development are involved in NumPy, and given their schedule for migrating I think the answer is "no, there is nothing yet".
I would advise treating Python 3.x as "still experimental" and start with Python 2.6 instead. Make some small effort to write your code in a such a way that it won't be too hard to migrate in, say, a year or two, when the Python 3.x series really stabilizes, but don't jump there just yet. Other more general questions have answers that may help you decide.

EDIT: PyEuclid has supports matrices, vectors up to 4 dimensions and is designed for geometric operations.
Otherwise, the answer is probably not what you want, but:
use python 2.x instead, do use numpy (which is really good), until numpy supports python 3.x
implement your own Matrix class, since you don't require too much functionality and it's a good exercise to implement. Should be less work than looking a day on the internet.