Can generating permutations be done in parallel?











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












I'm trying to figure out if I can speed up the generation of permutations. Specifically I'm using 8 out of [a-z] and I'd like to use 8 out of [a-zA-Z] and 8 out of [a-zA-Z0-9]. Which I know will quickly take a great deal of time and space.



Even just a permutation of length 8 from the lowercase ASCII characters takes a while and generates gigabytes. My problem is that I don't understand the underlying algorithm and so I can't begin to figure out if I can split the problem up into smaller tasks than I can join together later.



A python script I was using to generate a list of permutations:



import string
import itertools
from itertools import permutations

comb = itertools.permutations(string.ascii_lowercase, 8)

f = open('8letters.txt', 'w')
for x in comb:
y = ''.join(x)
f.write(y + 'n')

f.close()


Does anyone know how to partition this up into subtasks and put them together later? Is it possible at all?



I might just try a (possibly) faster way of doing it, but I'm having trouble with C++ and its std::next_permutation(), so I can't verify that it could speed things up even a little just yet.



If I can partition it up into 16 tasks, and run on 16 Xeon CPUs, then join the results, that would be great.










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    I'm trying to figure out if I can speed up the generation of permutations. Specifically I'm using 8 out of [a-z] and I'd like to use 8 out of [a-zA-Z] and 8 out of [a-zA-Z0-9]. Which I know will quickly take a great deal of time and space.



    Even just a permutation of length 8 from the lowercase ASCII characters takes a while and generates gigabytes. My problem is that I don't understand the underlying algorithm and so I can't begin to figure out if I can split the problem up into smaller tasks than I can join together later.



    A python script I was using to generate a list of permutations:



    import string
    import itertools
    from itertools import permutations

    comb = itertools.permutations(string.ascii_lowercase, 8)

    f = open('8letters.txt', 'w')
    for x in comb:
    y = ''.join(x)
    f.write(y + 'n')

    f.close()


    Does anyone know how to partition this up into subtasks and put them together later? Is it possible at all?



    I might just try a (possibly) faster way of doing it, but I'm having trouble with C++ and its std::next_permutation(), so I can't verify that it could speed things up even a little just yet.



    If I can partition it up into 16 tasks, and run on 16 Xeon CPUs, then join the results, that would be great.










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      I'm trying to figure out if I can speed up the generation of permutations. Specifically I'm using 8 out of [a-z] and I'd like to use 8 out of [a-zA-Z] and 8 out of [a-zA-Z0-9]. Which I know will quickly take a great deal of time and space.



      Even just a permutation of length 8 from the lowercase ASCII characters takes a while and generates gigabytes. My problem is that I don't understand the underlying algorithm and so I can't begin to figure out if I can split the problem up into smaller tasks than I can join together later.



      A python script I was using to generate a list of permutations:



      import string
      import itertools
      from itertools import permutations

      comb = itertools.permutations(string.ascii_lowercase, 8)

      f = open('8letters.txt', 'w')
      for x in comb:
      y = ''.join(x)
      f.write(y + 'n')

      f.close()


      Does anyone know how to partition this up into subtasks and put them together later? Is it possible at all?



      I might just try a (possibly) faster way of doing it, but I'm having trouble with C++ and its std::next_permutation(), so I can't verify that it could speed things up even a little just yet.



      If I can partition it up into 16 tasks, and run on 16 Xeon CPUs, then join the results, that would be great.










      share|improve this question













      I'm trying to figure out if I can speed up the generation of permutations. Specifically I'm using 8 out of [a-z] and I'd like to use 8 out of [a-zA-Z] and 8 out of [a-zA-Z0-9]. Which I know will quickly take a great deal of time and space.



      Even just a permutation of length 8 from the lowercase ASCII characters takes a while and generates gigabytes. My problem is that I don't understand the underlying algorithm and so I can't begin to figure out if I can split the problem up into smaller tasks than I can join together later.



      A python script I was using to generate a list of permutations:



      import string
      import itertools
      from itertools import permutations

      comb = itertools.permutations(string.ascii_lowercase, 8)

      f = open('8letters.txt', 'w')
      for x in comb:
      y = ''.join(x)
      f.write(y + 'n')

      f.close()


      Does anyone know how to partition this up into subtasks and put them together later? Is it possible at all?



      I might just try a (possibly) faster way of doing it, but I'm having trouble with C++ and its std::next_permutation(), so I can't verify that it could speed things up even a little just yet.



      If I can partition it up into 16 tasks, and run on 16 Xeon CPUs, then join the results, that would be great.







      python parallel-processing permutation combinatorics






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 11 at 15:03









      James Young

      333




      333
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted










          If it were just permutations with replacement, it would be very easy: Just parallelize on the first letter of the string and then let each thread add the tail of the string. This would give you 26 independent tasks. If that is not enough, you could parallelize on the first two letters.



          You want to have a permutation without replacement, so the problem does not trivially factorize. If one only wants to pick 8 letters from a set of 26, 52 and 62, one could do a naive brute thing: Parallelize on the first letter, let the thread just create the tail with replacement and discard the generated strings that contain duplicates. But when you want to pick 25 from 26 letters, this becomes really wasteful.



          With that idea in mind, we can do better! We parallelize on the first letter of the string and then generate all permutations with seven elements from the set excluding the letter that we started with. This way we can have 26 tasks (or 52 or 62) and still use the algorithm. This could look like this:



          # Use whatever chars you want as the set.
          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)

          # We iterate through all the possible heads. This exact loop will be
          # parallelized in the end.
          for head in chars:
          # Exclude the head from the set.
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)

          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7):
          string = head + ''.join(tail)

          # Store the string in your list/file.


          In order to make use of multiple cores, we use a pool. For this we first need a function to map over. This is just the above a bit refactored:



          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7)]

          return strings


          Now somewhere else we can create a pool and let it map over heads:



          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)


          The pool only got the needed __enter__ and __exit__ properties with Python 3, so I assume that we use that.



          Once that is finished the flatten the list of lists into a plain list of strings:



          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]


          Since 26 is an odd number for 16 cores, we could think about creating the heads with itertools.permutation(remaining_chars, 2) and then using the set subtraction to generate the last 6 digits.





          This is a complete working script for Python 3 that summarizes everything:



          import itertools
          import multiprocessing
          import string


          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)


          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 3)]

          return strings


          def main():
          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)

          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]

          print(strings[:100])


          if __name__ == '__main__':
          main()





          share|improve this answer























          • Thank you! So I can use the first part of the code, replace for head in chars: ... with the make_strings function, then add with multiprocessing.ProcessPool ... letit finish then print out the strings in [ string for sub_list in all_strings for string in sub_list ] ? Why is 26 an odd number for 16 cores? I just plucked that number out; I have 24 cores and I can adjust that for the task :) Thank you!!!
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 15:41










          • I have added a complete program at the end such that you do not have to assemble the bits and pieces. This will only print out the first 100 elements, and I have tested it with a length of 4 strings. — Depending on what you do, it might not be the best idea to store them all in a file but rather do what you need to do with each string and not store them at all.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 11 at 15:45










          • Thank you Martin again. Fantastic. I have been looking up an error though: File "permutations8.py", line 21, in main with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool: AttributeError: exit Apparently it means multiprocessing.Pool() has no enter and exit methods: stackoverflow.com/questions/7447284/…
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:11












          • Oh. Just switched to Python 3 and it worked. Thanks again Martin, absolutely fantastic.
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:43










          • @JamesYoung: I have now explicitly stated that it is Python 3. I had assumed that everything newly developed these days uses Python 3.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 12 at 12:21











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53250001%2fcan-generating-permutations-be-done-in-parallel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted










          If it were just permutations with replacement, it would be very easy: Just parallelize on the first letter of the string and then let each thread add the tail of the string. This would give you 26 independent tasks. If that is not enough, you could parallelize on the first two letters.



          You want to have a permutation without replacement, so the problem does not trivially factorize. If one only wants to pick 8 letters from a set of 26, 52 and 62, one could do a naive brute thing: Parallelize on the first letter, let the thread just create the tail with replacement and discard the generated strings that contain duplicates. But when you want to pick 25 from 26 letters, this becomes really wasteful.



          With that idea in mind, we can do better! We parallelize on the first letter of the string and then generate all permutations with seven elements from the set excluding the letter that we started with. This way we can have 26 tasks (or 52 or 62) and still use the algorithm. This could look like this:



          # Use whatever chars you want as the set.
          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)

          # We iterate through all the possible heads. This exact loop will be
          # parallelized in the end.
          for head in chars:
          # Exclude the head from the set.
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)

          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7):
          string = head + ''.join(tail)

          # Store the string in your list/file.


          In order to make use of multiple cores, we use a pool. For this we first need a function to map over. This is just the above a bit refactored:



          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7)]

          return strings


          Now somewhere else we can create a pool and let it map over heads:



          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)


          The pool only got the needed __enter__ and __exit__ properties with Python 3, so I assume that we use that.



          Once that is finished the flatten the list of lists into a plain list of strings:



          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]


          Since 26 is an odd number for 16 cores, we could think about creating the heads with itertools.permutation(remaining_chars, 2) and then using the set subtraction to generate the last 6 digits.





          This is a complete working script for Python 3 that summarizes everything:



          import itertools
          import multiprocessing
          import string


          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)


          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 3)]

          return strings


          def main():
          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)

          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]

          print(strings[:100])


          if __name__ == '__main__':
          main()





          share|improve this answer























          • Thank you! So I can use the first part of the code, replace for head in chars: ... with the make_strings function, then add with multiprocessing.ProcessPool ... letit finish then print out the strings in [ string for sub_list in all_strings for string in sub_list ] ? Why is 26 an odd number for 16 cores? I just plucked that number out; I have 24 cores and I can adjust that for the task :) Thank you!!!
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 15:41










          • I have added a complete program at the end such that you do not have to assemble the bits and pieces. This will only print out the first 100 elements, and I have tested it with a length of 4 strings. — Depending on what you do, it might not be the best idea to store them all in a file but rather do what you need to do with each string and not store them at all.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 11 at 15:45










          • Thank you Martin again. Fantastic. I have been looking up an error though: File "permutations8.py", line 21, in main with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool: AttributeError: exit Apparently it means multiprocessing.Pool() has no enter and exit methods: stackoverflow.com/questions/7447284/…
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:11












          • Oh. Just switched to Python 3 and it worked. Thanks again Martin, absolutely fantastic.
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:43










          • @JamesYoung: I have now explicitly stated that it is Python 3. I had assumed that everything newly developed these days uses Python 3.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 12 at 12:21















          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted










          If it were just permutations with replacement, it would be very easy: Just parallelize on the first letter of the string and then let each thread add the tail of the string. This would give you 26 independent tasks. If that is not enough, you could parallelize on the first two letters.



          You want to have a permutation without replacement, so the problem does not trivially factorize. If one only wants to pick 8 letters from a set of 26, 52 and 62, one could do a naive brute thing: Parallelize on the first letter, let the thread just create the tail with replacement and discard the generated strings that contain duplicates. But when you want to pick 25 from 26 letters, this becomes really wasteful.



          With that idea in mind, we can do better! We parallelize on the first letter of the string and then generate all permutations with seven elements from the set excluding the letter that we started with. This way we can have 26 tasks (or 52 or 62) and still use the algorithm. This could look like this:



          # Use whatever chars you want as the set.
          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)

          # We iterate through all the possible heads. This exact loop will be
          # parallelized in the end.
          for head in chars:
          # Exclude the head from the set.
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)

          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7):
          string = head + ''.join(tail)

          # Store the string in your list/file.


          In order to make use of multiple cores, we use a pool. For this we first need a function to map over. This is just the above a bit refactored:



          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7)]

          return strings


          Now somewhere else we can create a pool and let it map over heads:



          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)


          The pool only got the needed __enter__ and __exit__ properties with Python 3, so I assume that we use that.



          Once that is finished the flatten the list of lists into a plain list of strings:



          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]


          Since 26 is an odd number for 16 cores, we could think about creating the heads with itertools.permutation(remaining_chars, 2) and then using the set subtraction to generate the last 6 digits.





          This is a complete working script for Python 3 that summarizes everything:



          import itertools
          import multiprocessing
          import string


          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)


          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 3)]

          return strings


          def main():
          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)

          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]

          print(strings[:100])


          if __name__ == '__main__':
          main()





          share|improve this answer























          • Thank you! So I can use the first part of the code, replace for head in chars: ... with the make_strings function, then add with multiprocessing.ProcessPool ... letit finish then print out the strings in [ string for sub_list in all_strings for string in sub_list ] ? Why is 26 an odd number for 16 cores? I just plucked that number out; I have 24 cores and I can adjust that for the task :) Thank you!!!
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 15:41










          • I have added a complete program at the end such that you do not have to assemble the bits and pieces. This will only print out the first 100 elements, and I have tested it with a length of 4 strings. — Depending on what you do, it might not be the best idea to store them all in a file but rather do what you need to do with each string and not store them at all.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 11 at 15:45










          • Thank you Martin again. Fantastic. I have been looking up an error though: File "permutations8.py", line 21, in main with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool: AttributeError: exit Apparently it means multiprocessing.Pool() has no enter and exit methods: stackoverflow.com/questions/7447284/…
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:11












          • Oh. Just switched to Python 3 and it worked. Thanks again Martin, absolutely fantastic.
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:43










          • @JamesYoung: I have now explicitly stated that it is Python 3. I had assumed that everything newly developed these days uses Python 3.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 12 at 12:21













          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted






          If it were just permutations with replacement, it would be very easy: Just parallelize on the first letter of the string and then let each thread add the tail of the string. This would give you 26 independent tasks. If that is not enough, you could parallelize on the first two letters.



          You want to have a permutation without replacement, so the problem does not trivially factorize. If one only wants to pick 8 letters from a set of 26, 52 and 62, one could do a naive brute thing: Parallelize on the first letter, let the thread just create the tail with replacement and discard the generated strings that contain duplicates. But when you want to pick 25 from 26 letters, this becomes really wasteful.



          With that idea in mind, we can do better! We parallelize on the first letter of the string and then generate all permutations with seven elements from the set excluding the letter that we started with. This way we can have 26 tasks (or 52 or 62) and still use the algorithm. This could look like this:



          # Use whatever chars you want as the set.
          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)

          # We iterate through all the possible heads. This exact loop will be
          # parallelized in the end.
          for head in chars:
          # Exclude the head from the set.
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)

          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7):
          string = head + ''.join(tail)

          # Store the string in your list/file.


          In order to make use of multiple cores, we use a pool. For this we first need a function to map over. This is just the above a bit refactored:



          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7)]

          return strings


          Now somewhere else we can create a pool and let it map over heads:



          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)


          The pool only got the needed __enter__ and __exit__ properties with Python 3, so I assume that we use that.



          Once that is finished the flatten the list of lists into a plain list of strings:



          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]


          Since 26 is an odd number for 16 cores, we could think about creating the heads with itertools.permutation(remaining_chars, 2) and then using the set subtraction to generate the last 6 digits.





          This is a complete working script for Python 3 that summarizes everything:



          import itertools
          import multiprocessing
          import string


          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)


          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 3)]

          return strings


          def main():
          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)

          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]

          print(strings[:100])


          if __name__ == '__main__':
          main()





          share|improve this answer














          If it were just permutations with replacement, it would be very easy: Just parallelize on the first letter of the string and then let each thread add the tail of the string. This would give you 26 independent tasks. If that is not enough, you could parallelize on the first two letters.



          You want to have a permutation without replacement, so the problem does not trivially factorize. If one only wants to pick 8 letters from a set of 26, 52 and 62, one could do a naive brute thing: Parallelize on the first letter, let the thread just create the tail with replacement and discard the generated strings that contain duplicates. But when you want to pick 25 from 26 letters, this becomes really wasteful.



          With that idea in mind, we can do better! We parallelize on the first letter of the string and then generate all permutations with seven elements from the set excluding the letter that we started with. This way we can have 26 tasks (or 52 or 62) and still use the algorithm. This could look like this:



          # Use whatever chars you want as the set.
          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)

          # We iterate through all the possible heads. This exact loop will be
          # parallelized in the end.
          for head in chars:
          # Exclude the head from the set.
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)

          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7):
          string = head + ''.join(tail)

          # Store the string in your list/file.


          In order to make use of multiple cores, we use a pool. For this we first need a function to map over. This is just the above a bit refactored:



          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 7)]

          return strings


          Now somewhere else we can create a pool and let it map over heads:



          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)


          The pool only got the needed __enter__ and __exit__ properties with Python 3, so I assume that we use that.



          Once that is finished the flatten the list of lists into a plain list of strings:



          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]


          Since 26 is an odd number for 16 cores, we could think about creating the heads with itertools.permutation(remaining_chars, 2) and then using the set subtraction to generate the last 6 digits.





          This is a complete working script for Python 3 that summarizes everything:



          import itertools
          import multiprocessing
          import string


          chars = set(string.ascii_lowercase)


          def make_strings(head):
          remaining_chars = chars - set(head)
          strings = [
          head + ''.join(tail)
          for tail in itertools.permutations(remaining_chars, 3)]

          return strings


          def main():
          with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool:
          all_strings = pool.map(make_strings, chars)

          strings = [
          string
          for sub_list in all_strings
          for string in sub_list]

          print(strings[:100])


          if __name__ == '__main__':
          main()






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 12 at 12:20

























          answered Nov 11 at 15:24









          Martin Ueding

          3,47033052




          3,47033052












          • Thank you! So I can use the first part of the code, replace for head in chars: ... with the make_strings function, then add with multiprocessing.ProcessPool ... letit finish then print out the strings in [ string for sub_list in all_strings for string in sub_list ] ? Why is 26 an odd number for 16 cores? I just plucked that number out; I have 24 cores and I can adjust that for the task :) Thank you!!!
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 15:41










          • I have added a complete program at the end such that you do not have to assemble the bits and pieces. This will only print out the first 100 elements, and I have tested it with a length of 4 strings. — Depending on what you do, it might not be the best idea to store them all in a file but rather do what you need to do with each string and not store them at all.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 11 at 15:45










          • Thank you Martin again. Fantastic. I have been looking up an error though: File "permutations8.py", line 21, in main with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool: AttributeError: exit Apparently it means multiprocessing.Pool() has no enter and exit methods: stackoverflow.com/questions/7447284/…
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:11












          • Oh. Just switched to Python 3 and it worked. Thanks again Martin, absolutely fantastic.
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:43










          • @JamesYoung: I have now explicitly stated that it is Python 3. I had assumed that everything newly developed these days uses Python 3.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 12 at 12:21


















          • Thank you! So I can use the first part of the code, replace for head in chars: ... with the make_strings function, then add with multiprocessing.ProcessPool ... letit finish then print out the strings in [ string for sub_list in all_strings for string in sub_list ] ? Why is 26 an odd number for 16 cores? I just plucked that number out; I have 24 cores and I can adjust that for the task :) Thank you!!!
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 15:41










          • I have added a complete program at the end such that you do not have to assemble the bits and pieces. This will only print out the first 100 elements, and I have tested it with a length of 4 strings. — Depending on what you do, it might not be the best idea to store them all in a file but rather do what you need to do with each string and not store them at all.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 11 at 15:45










          • Thank you Martin again. Fantastic. I have been looking up an error though: File "permutations8.py", line 21, in main with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool: AttributeError: exit Apparently it means multiprocessing.Pool() has no enter and exit methods: stackoverflow.com/questions/7447284/…
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:11












          • Oh. Just switched to Python 3 and it worked. Thanks again Martin, absolutely fantastic.
            – James Young
            Nov 11 at 16:43










          • @JamesYoung: I have now explicitly stated that it is Python 3. I had assumed that everything newly developed these days uses Python 3.
            – Martin Ueding
            Nov 12 at 12:21
















          Thank you! So I can use the first part of the code, replace for head in chars: ... with the make_strings function, then add with multiprocessing.ProcessPool ... letit finish then print out the strings in [ string for sub_list in all_strings for string in sub_list ] ? Why is 26 an odd number for 16 cores? I just plucked that number out; I have 24 cores and I can adjust that for the task :) Thank you!!!
          – James Young
          Nov 11 at 15:41




          Thank you! So I can use the first part of the code, replace for head in chars: ... with the make_strings function, then add with multiprocessing.ProcessPool ... letit finish then print out the strings in [ string for sub_list in all_strings for string in sub_list ] ? Why is 26 an odd number for 16 cores? I just plucked that number out; I have 24 cores and I can adjust that for the task :) Thank you!!!
          – James Young
          Nov 11 at 15:41












          I have added a complete program at the end such that you do not have to assemble the bits and pieces. This will only print out the first 100 elements, and I have tested it with a length of 4 strings. — Depending on what you do, it might not be the best idea to store them all in a file but rather do what you need to do with each string and not store them at all.
          – Martin Ueding
          Nov 11 at 15:45




          I have added a complete program at the end such that you do not have to assemble the bits and pieces. This will only print out the first 100 elements, and I have tested it with a length of 4 strings. — Depending on what you do, it might not be the best idea to store them all in a file but rather do what you need to do with each string and not store them at all.
          – Martin Ueding
          Nov 11 at 15:45












          Thank you Martin again. Fantastic. I have been looking up an error though: File "permutations8.py", line 21, in main with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool: AttributeError: exit Apparently it means multiprocessing.Pool() has no enter and exit methods: stackoverflow.com/questions/7447284/…
          – James Young
          Nov 11 at 16:11






          Thank you Martin again. Fantastic. I have been looking up an error though: File "permutations8.py", line 21, in main with multiprocessing.Pool() as pool: AttributeError: exit Apparently it means multiprocessing.Pool() has no enter and exit methods: stackoverflow.com/questions/7447284/…
          – James Young
          Nov 11 at 16:11














          Oh. Just switched to Python 3 and it worked. Thanks again Martin, absolutely fantastic.
          – James Young
          Nov 11 at 16:43




          Oh. Just switched to Python 3 and it worked. Thanks again Martin, absolutely fantastic.
          – James Young
          Nov 11 at 16:43












          @JamesYoung: I have now explicitly stated that it is Python 3. I had assumed that everything newly developed these days uses Python 3.
          – Martin Ueding
          Nov 12 at 12:21




          @JamesYoung: I have now explicitly stated that it is Python 3. I had assumed that everything newly developed these days uses Python 3.
          – Martin Ueding
          Nov 12 at 12:21


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53250001%2fcan-generating-permutations-be-done-in-parallel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Florida Star v. B. J. F.

          Danny Elfman

          Retrieve a Users Dashboard in Tumblr with R and TumblR. Oauth Issues