Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Look for inefficiencies in the interaction between unmasking and spatial clustering #501

Closed
handwerkerd opened this issue Dec 13, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #591
Closed
Labels
good first issue issues that we think are good for new contributors. Equivalent to "very low" effort. priority: low issues that are not urgent refactoring issues proposing/requesting changes to the code which do not impact behavior

Comments

@handwerkerd
Copy link
Member

Summary

As part of examining #490, I noticed that utils.unmask was called 400 times through the tedana workflow. 352 of those 400 times were following the logged line:
"INFO:tedana.metrics.kundu_fit:Performing spatial clustering of components" My data has 323 volumes.

Next Steps

  • This section of the code should be examined to see if there is any way to call unmask less often or to make unmasking more efficient in this situation.
  • unmask should be profiled with different dataset sizes to get a sense of the computational costs of these repeated calls (i.e. is this inefficient enough to make optimization worth the effort). Profiling unmask might be a good first issue for someone.
  • This inefficiency relates to my general concern that always moving files around in an img format might end up compounding inefficiencies like this.
@handwerkerd handwerkerd added enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project good first issue issues that we think are good for new contributors. Equivalent to "very low" effort. priority: low issues that are not urgent labels Dec 13, 2019
@tsalo tsalo added refactoring issues proposing/requesting changes to the code which do not impact behavior and removed enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project labels Feb 21, 2020
@jbteves jbteves mentioned this issue Nov 20, 2020
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue issues that we think are good for new contributors. Equivalent to "very low" effort. priority: low issues that are not urgent refactoring issues proposing/requesting changes to the code which do not impact behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants