Performance: RRTPlanner polygon transforms, PoseGraph.optimize nonzero/pad, and where build_kdtree() would help
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 4/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 3-5 días
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 18/100
- Tipo de issue
- Refactorización
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- numpy, python
- Área
- performance, robotics
Línea de trabajo
Start with Vehicle.polygon in the vehicle module, called from RRTPlanner.plan, and with PoseGraph.optimize, which calls linearize_and_solve and linear_factors. Profile the example map with cProfile to reproduce the timings. Done means a measured speedup with the existing RRT and PoseGraph tests still passing and unchanged results. The issue leaves the approach open, so agree the target with the maintainer before writing code.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Found while profiling the pgraph-using code for petercorke/pgraph-python#74. These are RTB-side costs for investigation, not bugs; nothing here changes behaviour. Measurements are single runs on one machine (Python 3.12) with RTB's own example maps and data, at RTB feat/symbolic-ik and pgraph 1.0.0, so treat shares as approximate (cProfile inflates call-heavy code).
1. RRTPlanner: the vehicle polygon transform costs more than collision detection
plan(showsamples=False, showvalid=False) on the docstring example map, seed 0:
| nodes | total | Vehicle.polygon() |
Polygon2.intersects |
DubinsPlanner.query |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 1.80 s | 0.94 s (52%) | 0.35 s (19%) | 0.38 s (21%) |
| 400 | 16.7 s | 8.14 s (49%) | 3.06 s (18%) | 2.93 s (18%) |
Vehicle.polygon(q) is self._polygon.transformed(SE2(q)), called ~270k times at 400 nodes (~30 us per call against ~11 us for the intersection test). Most of it is building the SE2 (trot2, Pose2.__init__) and np.pad in the transform. Worth looking at: build the 2x2 rotation and translation directly, or transform all of the candidate configurations along a Dubins segment in one numpy call.
Also: plan() defaults to showsamples=True, showvalid=True, so a plain plan(goal=...) spends ~40% of its time in matplotlib Line2D.draw (3.7 s of 9.1 s at 100 nodes). That may be intended, but is worth knowing when timing it.
2. PoseGraph.optimize: ndarray.nonzero and per-factor np.pad
optimize(iterations=5):
| file | vertices / edges | total | ndarray.nonzero |
np.pad |
pgraph |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
killian-small.toro |
1,941 / 3,995 | 2.10 s | 0.39 s (5 calls) | 60k calls, 0.14 s | 1% |
killian.g2o.zip |
3,873 / 4,987 | 2.50 s | 1.12 s (3 calls) | 45k calls, 0.10 s | 1% |
A nonzero taking 0.1-0.4 s per call suggests a scan of a large (probably dense) array in or just below linearize_and_solve. I haven't looked at the source to find which one. linear_factors is called per edge each iteration (20k and 15k calls), with trinv2/np.pad inside, which could be vectorized over the edges.
pgraph is 1% of optimize and 19-33% of loading (0.04-0.1 s), so there is nothing to gain on the pgraph side.
3. build_kdtree() where it would help
pgraph's closest() is being changed so that it no longer loops over every vertex (pgraph#74): it will use a matrix of the coordinates, which add_vertex appends to, so interleaved add/query is fast. Because of that, LatticePlanner.plan and RRTPlanner.plan need no change: their closest calls are interleaved with add_vertex, which discards a k-d tree, so a tree would not be used there and building one each iteration would be slower.
For a graph that is finished and then queried, an explicit tree is faster again, and the gap grows with the number of vertices (the matrix is O(n) per query, the tree O(log n)):
| where | what | worth it? |
|---|---|---|
PRMPlanner.plan, once the roadmap is built, or lazily on the first query |
query calls closest twice and then path_Astar |
only if one plan is queried many times, or for very large npoints |
LatticePlanner.plan, after the last iteration |
query calls closest twice |
same |
RRTPlanner.plan, after the last node |
query calls closest once |
marginal |
Measured with pgraph's benchmark at N=1,000: no tree 726 us per closest (before the pgraph change) or 12 us (after), with tree 6 us. So for a single query the difference is microseconds. It matters for something that queries one graph repeatedly (many start/goal pairs on one PRM roadmap), and I would not add it unless that use case is real.
If it is added:
build_kdtree()raisesValueErrorfor a custom metric or when no vertex has a coordinate, andImportErrorwithout scipy (a dependency of spatialmath, so present, but pgraph imports it lazily). The planners use the built-in L2 or SE2 metric, so it should be a call with no guard, but it should be checked.- The tree is dropped by any
add_vertex, removal or assignment tovertex.coord, which is why it can only be built at the end ofplan. - It needs a pgraph that has
build_kdtree(in 1.0.0).
Not an issue
PRMPlanner.planis 92% collision checking (OccGrid.w2g/isoccupied, 637k calls at 400 points), with pgraph 8%, and the all-pairsvertex.distanceloop is 0.3 s of 2.65 s.BundleAdjust.optimize(MVTB, so not this repo): pgraph 0.1%, camera Jacobians and scipylilindexing dominate.
Related: #738 (pgraph 1.0 adaptation) and #746 (mobile planner/PoseGraph defects), whose tests would make a good place to check results are unchanged after any of the above.
- Lenguaje dominante
- C++
- Estrellas
- 3.5k
- Forks
- 639
- Merge medio
- 1 d 8 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 113
Preparar el entorno
- Sin Dockerfile ni archivo de Docker Compose
- Tiene una plantilla de pull request
- Leer la guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de petercorke/robotics-toolbox-python
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
petercorke/robotics-toolbox-python#709 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
help wanted
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 48/100
petercorke/robotics-toolbox-python#839 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
enhancement help wanted
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 52/100
petercorke/robotics-toolbox-python#825 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
feat(ets): numerical inverse kinematics for planar ETS2Posiblemente ocupada @qwist1233-cpu la tomó hace 3 días. Abiertoenhancement help wanted
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
petercorke/robotics-toolbox-python#824 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Rigorous testing of operational-space methodsPosiblemente ocupada @kVinsom la tomó hace 1 día. Abiertotech-debt Tests needed
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 25/100
petercorke/robotics-toolbox-python#804 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Todos los issues de petercorke/robotics-toolbox-python
Issues similares
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 74/100
eclipse-score/inc_someip_gateway#356 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 2 días
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
HarperFast/rocksdb-js#945 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
A failed COMMIT leaves the DuckLake transaction registered, leaking the whole DuckDB instanceAbierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 85/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
needs-format
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 69/100
Niko1221/Strata#3368 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 3 días