Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14440 > unrolled thread

Deephaven inspired me to name a predicate [first_by/2]

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog

Contents

  Deephaven inspired me to name a predicate [first_by/2] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-10 18:44 +0100
    India & France had their AI Bikini Moment (Was: Deephaven inspired me to name a predicate [first_by/2]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-10 21:17 +0100
      More about an experimental aggregate_by/4 (Was: India & France had their AI Bikini Moment) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-16 12:24 +0100
        Experimental aggregate_by/4 was dismissed (Was: India & France had their AI Bikini Moment) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-16 12:25 +0100
          Re: Experimental aggregate_by/4 was dismissed (Was: India & France had their AI Bikini Moment) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-02-16 12:54 -0600

#14440 — Deephaven inspired me to name a predicate [first_by/2]

Hi,

Suddently I got an allergy to name a predicate
distinct/2. It is not so obvious that distinct/1 and
distinct/2 are related. There is no constant C such that:

distinct(X) :- distinct(C, X).

Just joking, but for some consistency with the introduction
of group_by/4 and aggregate_by/4 I went for the
name first_by/2. The name is more intuitive:

?- [user].
p(1,a).
p(1,b).
p(2,c).
p(2,d).
p(2,e).
^Z
true.

Now some queries:

?- p(X,Y), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
1-a
1-b
2-c
2-d
2-e
true.

?- first_by(X, p(X,Y)), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
1-a
2-c
true.

Cool! The name is also used here with the same semantics:

https://deephaven.io/core/docs/reference/table-operations/group-and-aggregate/firstBy/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14441 — India & France had their AI Bikini Moment (Was: Deephaven inspired me to name a predicate [first_by/2])

Hi,

India & France had their AI Bikini Moment.
Facinating behavior:

Macron Says He And PM Modi Will Push
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCK8yAnlkA

But don't be fooled, things are possibly
more connected:

Synthesia: France's 109-billion-euro AI investment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uyo4RG0Q6I

Bye


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Suddently I got an allergy to name a predicate
> distinct/2. It is not so obvious that distinct/1 and
> distinct/2 are related. There is no constant C such that:
> 
> distinct(X) :- distinct(C, X).
> 
> Just joking, but for some consistency with the introduction
> of group_by/4 and aggregate_by/4 I went for the
> name first_by/2. The name is more intuitive:
> 
> ?- [user].
> p(1,a).
> p(1,b).
> p(2,c).
> p(2,d).
> p(2,e).
> ^Z
> true.
> 
> Now some queries:
> 
> ?- p(X,Y), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
> 1-a
> 1-b
> 2-c
> 2-d
> 2-e
> true.
> 
> ?- first_by(X, p(X,Y)), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
> 1-a
> 2-c
> true.
> 
> Cool! The name is also used here with the same semantics:
> 
> https://deephaven.io/core/docs/reference/table-operations/group-and-aggregate/firstBy/ 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14445 — More about an experimental aggregate_by/4 (Was: India & France had their AI Bikini Moment)

Just noticed that group_by/4 calculates variables
and then delegates to bagof/3. But the later predicate
calculates also varables, so I suspect quite an overhead:

/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.19 */
group_by(By, Template, Goal, Bag) :-
     ordered_term_variables(Goal, GVars),
     ordered_term_variables(By+Template, UVars),
     ord_subtract(GVars, UVars, ExVars),
     bagof(Template, ExVars^Goal, Bag).

I went with another soluton. First I provided a variant
of aggregate/3 by the name aggregate_by/4 where one can
offload the internal term_variables/2 calculation.
Then use this bootstrapping:

/* Dogelog Player 1.3.0 */
group_by(Witness, Template, Goal, List) :-
    aggregate_by(Witness, bag(Template), Goal, List).

Here is some testing:

/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.19 */
?- length(_H,4000), time((between(1,2000,_),
         group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
         fail; true)).
% 1,153,998 inferences, 0.562 CPU in 0.568 seconds (99% CPU, 2051552 Lips)
true.
?- length(_H,8000), time((between(1,2000,_),
         group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
         fail; true)).
% 1,153,998 inferences, 1.047 CPU in 1.060 seconds (99% CPU, 1102326 Lips)
true.

/* Dogelog Player 1.3.0 */
?- length(_H,4000), time((between(1,2000,_),
         group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
         fail; true)).
% Zeit 399 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 16987636, Uhr 10.02.2025 10:49
true.
?- length(_H,8000), time((between(1,2000,_),
         group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
         fail; true)).
% Zeit 400 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 16945167, Uhr 10.02.2025 10:50
true.

The old version suffers from some term_variables/2
dependency whereas the new version is totally immune
on the size of the given goal, since any internal
term_variables/2 has been offloaded.

I couldn’t name aggregate_by/4 as aggregate/4, since
the later already exists in SWI-Prolog and SICStus Prolog
and has a different semantics, it is not the analog of
distinct/2, where one can specify Witnesses.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> India & France had their AI Bikini Moment.
> Facinating behavior:
> 
> Macron Says He And PM Modi Will Push
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCK8yAnlkA
> 
> But don't be fooled, things are possibly
> more connected:
> 
> Synthesia: France's 109-billion-euro AI investment
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uyo4RG0Q6I
> 
> Bye
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Suddently I got an allergy to name a predicate
>> distinct/2. It is not so obvious that distinct/1 and
>> distinct/2 are related. There is no constant C such that:
>>
>> distinct(X) :- distinct(C, X).
>>
>> Just joking, but for some consistency with the introduction
>> of group_by/4 and aggregate_by/4 I went for the
>> name first_by/2. The name is more intuitive:
>>
>> ?- [user].
>> p(1,a).
>> p(1,b).
>> p(2,c).
>> p(2,d).
>> p(2,e).
>> ^Z
>> true.
>>
>> Now some queries:
>>
>> ?- p(X,Y), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
>> 1-a
>> 1-b
>> 2-c
>> 2-d
>> 2-e
>> true.
>>
>> ?- first_by(X, p(X,Y)), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
>> 1-a
>> 2-c
>> true.
>>
>> Cool! The name is also used here with the same semantics:
>>
>> https://deephaven.io/core/docs/reference/table-operations/group-and-aggregate/firstBy/ 
>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14446 — Experimental aggregate_by/4 was dismissed (Was: India & France had their AI Bikini Moment)

I was exploring group_by/4 respectively a new
aggregate_by/4 for some machine learning statistics.
But the slowdown is not that aggravated if the extra
parameter _H is ground. The cost is smaller

factor then. So I had a change of mind in favor
of more declarative aggregate/3. Too much new predicates
isn't healthy so I dismissed the idea of supporting
distinct/2, group_by/4 and a new aggregate_by/4.

But somehow I fell in love with the idea of a new
firstof/2 predicate, instead of distinct/2, it could
be bootstrapped as follows:
```
firstof(X, Q) :-
    bagof(X, Q, L),
    L = [X|_].
```
Except it can be implemented like distinct/2 more
eagerly fitting to some other predicates from
the library(sequence):
```
p(1,a).
p(1,b).
p(2,c).
p(2,d).
p(2,e).

?- firstof(Y,p(X,Y)).
Y = a, X = 1;
Y = c, X = 2;
fail.
```

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Just noticed that group_by/4 calculates variables
> and then delegates to bagof/3. But the later predicate
> calculates also varables, so I suspect quite an overhead:
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.19 */
> group_by(By, Template, Goal, Bag) :-
>      ordered_term_variables(Goal, GVars),
>      ordered_term_variables(By+Template, UVars),
>      ord_subtract(GVars, UVars, ExVars),
>      bagof(Template, ExVars^Goal, Bag).
> 
> I went with another soluton. First I provided a variant
> of aggregate/3 by the name aggregate_by/4 where one can
> offload the internal term_variables/2 calculation.
> Then use this bootstrapping:
> 
> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.0 */
> group_by(Witness, Template, Goal, List) :-
>     aggregate_by(Witness, bag(Template), Goal, List).
> 
> Here is some testing:
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.19 */
> ?- length(_H,4000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>          fail; true)).
> % 1,153,998 inferences, 0.562 CPU in 0.568 seconds (99% CPU, 2051552 Lips)
> true.
> ?- length(_H,8000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>          fail; true)).
> % 1,153,998 inferences, 1.047 CPU in 1.060 seconds (99% CPU, 1102326 Lips)
> true.
> 
> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.0 */
> ?- length(_H,4000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>          fail; true)).
> % Zeit 399 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 16987636, Uhr 10.02.2025 10:49
> true.
> ?- length(_H,8000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>          fail; true)).
> % Zeit 400 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 16945167, Uhr 10.02.2025 10:50
> true.
> 
> The old version suffers from some term_variables/2
> dependency whereas the new version is totally immune
> on the size of the given goal, since any internal
> term_variables/2 has been offloaded.
> 
> I couldn’t name aggregate_by/4 as aggregate/4, since
> the later already exists in SWI-Prolog and SICStus Prolog
> and has a different semantics, it is not the analog of
> distinct/2, where one can specify Witnesses.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> India & France had their AI Bikini Moment.
>> Facinating behavior:
>>
>> Macron Says He And PM Modi Will Push
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCK8yAnlkA
>>
>> But don't be fooled, things are possibly
>> more connected:
>>
>> Synthesia: France's 109-billion-euro AI investment
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uyo4RG0Q6I
>>
>> Bye
>>
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Suddently I got an allergy to name a predicate
>>> distinct/2. It is not so obvious that distinct/1 and
>>> distinct/2 are related. There is no constant C such that:
>>>
>>> distinct(X) :- distinct(C, X).
>>>
>>> Just joking, but for some consistency with the introduction
>>> of group_by/4 and aggregate_by/4 I went for the
>>> name first_by/2. The name is more intuitive:
>>>
>>> ?- [user].
>>> p(1,a).
>>> p(1,b).
>>> p(2,c).
>>> p(2,d).
>>> p(2,e).
>>> ^Z
>>> true.
>>>
>>> Now some queries:
>>>
>>> ?- p(X,Y), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
>>> 1-a
>>> 1-b
>>> 2-c
>>> 2-d
>>> 2-e
>>> true.
>>>
>>> ?- first_by(X, p(X,Y)), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
>>> 1-a
>>> 2-c
>>> true.
>>>
>>> Cool! The name is also used here with the same semantics:
>>>
>>> https://deephaven.io/core/docs/reference/table-operations/group-and-aggregate/firstBy/ 
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14447 — Re: Experimental aggregate_by/4 was dismissed (Was: India & France had their AI Bikini Moment)

On 2/16/2025 5:25 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
> I was exploring group_by/4 respectively a new
> aggregate_by/4 for some machine learning statistics.
> But the slowdown is not that aggravated if the extra
> parameter _H is ground. The cost is smaller
> 
> factor then. So I had a change of mind in favor
> of more declarative aggregate/3. Too much new predicates
> isn't healthy so I dismissed the idea of supporting
> distinct/2, group_by/4 and a new aggregate_by/4.
> 
> But somehow I fell in love with the idea of a new
> firstof/2 predicate, instead of distinct/2, it could
> be bootstrapped as follows:
> ```
> firstof(X, Q) :-
>     bagof(X, Q, L),
>     L = [X|_].
> ```
> Except it can be implemented like distinct/2 more
> eagerly fitting to some other predicates from
> the library(sequence):
> ```
> p(1,a).
> p(1,b).
> p(2,c).
> p(2,d).
> p(2,e).
> 
> ?- firstof(Y,p(X,Y)).
> Y = a, X = 1;
> Y = c, X = 2;
> fail.
> ```
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Just noticed that group_by/4 calculates variables
>> and then delegates to bagof/3. But the later predicate
>> calculates also varables, so I suspect quite an overhead:
>>
>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.19 */
>> group_by(By, Template, Goal, Bag) :-
>>      ordered_term_variables(Goal, GVars),
>>      ordered_term_variables(By+Template, UVars),
>>      ord_subtract(GVars, UVars, ExVars),
>>      bagof(Template, ExVars^Goal, Bag).
>>
>> I went with another soluton. First I provided a variant
>> of aggregate/3 by the name aggregate_by/4 where one can
>> offload the internal term_variables/2 calculation.
>> Then use this bootstrapping:
>>
>> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.0 */
>> group_by(Witness, Template, Goal, List) :-
>>     aggregate_by(Witness, bag(Template), Goal, List).
>>
>> Here is some testing:
>>
>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.19 */
>> ?- length(_H,4000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>>          fail; true)).
>> % 1,153,998 inferences, 0.562 CPU in 0.568 seconds (99% CPU, 2051552 
>> Lips)
>> true.
>> ?- length(_H,8000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>>          fail; true)).
>> % 1,153,998 inferences, 1.047 CPU in 1.060 seconds (99% CPU, 1102326 
>> Lips)
>> true.
>>
>> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.0 */
>> ?- length(_H,4000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>>          fail; true)).
>> % Zeit 399 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 16987636, Uhr 10.02.2025 10:49
>> true.
>> ?- length(_H,8000), time((between(1,2000,_),
>>          group_by(X,Y,(nonvar(_H),between(1,10,Y),between(1,10,X)),L),
>>          fail; true)).
>> % Zeit 400 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 16945167, Uhr 10.02.2025 10:50
>> true.
>>
>> The old version suffers from some term_variables/2
>> dependency whereas the new version is totally immune
>> on the size of the given goal, since any internal
>> term_variables/2 has been offloaded.
>>
>> I couldn’t name aggregate_by/4 as aggregate/4, since
>> the later already exists in SWI-Prolog and SICStus Prolog
>> and has a different semantics, it is not the analog of
>> distinct/2, where one can specify Witnesses.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> India & France had their AI Bikini Moment.
>>> Facinating behavior:
>>>
>>> Macron Says He And PM Modi Will Push
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCK8yAnlkA
>>>
>>> But don't be fooled, things are possibly
>>> more connected:
>>>
>>> Synthesia: France's 109-billion-euro AI investment
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uyo4RG0Q6I
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Suddently I got an allergy to name a predicate
>>>> distinct/2. It is not so obvious that distinct/1 and
>>>> distinct/2 are related. There is no constant C such that:
>>>>
>>>> distinct(X) :- distinct(C, X).
>>>>
>>>> Just joking, but for some consistency with the introduction
>>>> of group_by/4 and aggregate_by/4 I went for the
>>>> name first_by/2. The name is more intuitive:
>>>>
>>>> ?- [user].
>>>> p(1,a).
>>>> p(1,b).
>>>> p(2,c).
>>>> p(2,d).
>>>> p(2,e).
>>>> ^Z
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> Now some queries:
>>>>
>>>> ?- p(X,Y), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
>>>> 1-a
>>>> 1-b
>>>> 2-c
>>>> 2-d
>>>> 2-e
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> ?- first_by(X, p(X,Y)), write(X-Y), nl, fail; true.
>>>> 1-a
>>>> 2-c
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> Cool! The name is also used here with the same semantics:
>>>>
>>>> https://deephaven.io/core/docs/reference/table-operations/group-and- 
>>>> aggregate/firstBy/
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
test

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
  Genius hits a target no one else can see."
  Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog

csiph-web