Geometry Node: Index of Nearest #104619

Merged
Jacques Lucke merged 31 commits from mod_moder/blender:index_of_nearest into main 2023-04-22 13:12:03 +02:00
2 changed files with 77 additions and 63 deletions
Showing only changes of commit a7f477b2ef - Show all commits

View File

@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_FLIP_FACES, 0, "FLIP_FACES", FlipFaces, "Flip Fac
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_GEOMETRY_TO_INSTANCE, 0, "GEOMETRY_TO_INSTANCE", GeometryToInstance, "Geometry to Instance", "Convert each input geometry into an instance, which can be much faster than the Join Geometry node when the inputs are large")
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_IMAGE_INFO, 0, "IMAGE_INFO", ImageInfo, "Image Info", "Retrieve information about an image")
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_IMAGE_TEXTURE, def_geo_image_texture, "IMAGE_TEXTURE", ImageTexture, "Image Texture", "Sample values from an image texture")
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_INDEX_OF_NEAREST, 0, "INDEX_OF_NEAREST", IndexOfNearest, "Index of Nearest", "Index of nearest element by groups condition")
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_INDEX_OF_NEAREST, 0, "INDEX_OF_NEAREST", IndexOfNearest, "Index of Nearest", "Find the nearest element in the a group. Similar to the \"Sample Nearest\" node")
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

For the description, I'd suggest:
Find the nearest element in the a group

Adding . Similar to the \"Sample Nearest\" node might be helpful too.

For the description, I'd suggest: `Find the nearest element in the a group` Adding `. Similar to the \"Sample Nearest\" node` might be helpful too.
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_IMAGE, def_geo_image, "IMAGE", InputImage, "Image", "Input image")
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_INPUT_CURVE_HANDLES, 0, "INPUT_CURVE_HANDLES", InputCurveHandlePositions,"Curve Handle Positions", "Retrieve the position of each Bézier control point's handles")
DefNode(GeometryNode, GEO_NODE_INPUT_CURVE_TILT, 0, "INPUT_CURVE_TILT", InputCurveTilt, "Curve Tilt", "Retrieve the angle at each control point used to twist the curve's normal around its tangent")

View File

@ -8,34 +8,19 @@
#include "BLI_multi_value_map.hh"
#include "BLI_task.hh"
#include "BKE_geometry_fields.hh"
#include "node_geometry_util.hh"
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
Review

BKE_geometry_fields.hh is already included indirectly by node_geometry_util.hh

`BKE_geometry_fields.hh` is already included indirectly by `node_geometry_util.hh`
#include "UI_interface.h"
#include "UI_resources.h"
namespace blender::nodes::node_geo_index_of_nearest_cc {
static void node_declare(NodeDeclarationBuilder &b)
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

I think these UI includes are unused

I think these UI includes are unused
{
b.add_input<decl::Vector>("Position").implicit_field(implicit_field_inputs::position);
b.add_input<decl::Vector>(N_("Position")).implicit_field(implicit_field_inputs::position);
b.add_input<decl::Int>("Self Group ID").supports_field().hide_value().default_value(0);
b.add_input<decl::Int>("Group ID to Search").supports_field().hide_value().default_value(0);
b.add_input<decl::Int>(N_("Self Group ID")).supports_field().hide_value().default_value(0);
b.add_input<decl::Int>(N_("Nearest Group ID")).supports_field().hide_value().default_value(0);
b.add_output<decl::Int>("Index").field_source().description(N_("Index of nearest element"));
}
int kdtree_find_neighboard(KDTree_3d *tree, const float3 &position, int index)
{
return BLI_kdtree_3d_find_nearest_cb(
tree, position, 0, [index](const int other_new_i, const float * /*co*/, float /*dist_sq*/) {
if (index == other_new_i) {
return 0;
}
return 1;
});
b.add_output<decl::Int>(N_("Index")).field_source().description(N_("Index of nearest element"));
b.add_output<decl::Bool>(N_("Valid")).field_source();
}
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

These identifiers/names are missing the translation macro N_

These identifiers/names are missing the translation macro `N_`
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

We settled on Self Group ID and Nearest Group ID in the module meeting.

We settled on `Self Group ID` and `Nearest Group ID` in the module meeting.
class IndexOfNearestFieldInput final : public bke::GeometryFieldInput {
@ -64,63 +49,56 @@ class IndexOfNearestFieldInput final : public bke::GeometryFieldInput {
evaluator.add(search_group_);
evaluator.evaluate();

I don't think there's a benefit to specifying the capture in a case like this (instead of [&])

I don't think there's a benefit to specifying the capture in a case like this (instead of `[&]`)
const VArray<float3> positions = evaluator.get_evaluated<float3>(0);
const VArray<int> group = evaluator.get_evaluated<int>(1);
const VArray<int> search_group = evaluator.get_evaluated<int>(2);
const VArray<float3> &positions = evaluator.get_evaluated<float3>(0);
const VArray<int> &group = evaluator.get_evaluated<int>(1);
const VArray<int> &search_group = evaluator.get_evaluated<int>(2);
const bool group_use = !group.is_single();
const bool group_to_find_use = !search_group.is_single();
const bool use_group = !group.is_single();
const bool use_search_group = !search_group.is_single();
MultiValueMap<int, int64_t> in_group;
MultiValueMap<int, int64_t> out_group;
Array<int> indices(mask.min_array_size());
threading::parallel_invoke((indices.size() > 512) && group_to_find_use && group_use,
[&]() {
if (group_use) {
for (const int64_t i : mask.index_range()) {
in_group.add(group[mask[i]], i);
}
}
else {
const int group_key = group.get_internal_single();
in_group.add_multiple(group_key, {});
}
},
[&]() {
if (group_to_find_use) {
for (const int64_t i : mask.index_range()) {
out_group.add(search_group[mask[i]], i);
}
}
});
threading::parallel_invoke(
(indices.size() > 512) && use_search_group && use_group,
[&]() {
if (use_group) {

Can just use a normal for loop here. The performance benefit of using foreach_index is negligible, because most time is spend in the kdtree traversal.

Can just use a normal for loop here. The performance benefit of using `foreach_index` is negligible, because most time is spend in the kdtree traversal.
mask.foreach_index([&](const auto index) { in_group.add(group[index], index); });
return;
}
const int group_key = group.get_internal_single();
in_group.add_multiple(group_key, {});
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

I'd change these names to use_group and use_search_group for consistency with your other variable names and because use at front sounds more natural.

I'd change these names to `use_group` and `use_search_group` for consistency with your other variable names and because `use` at front sounds more natural.
},
[&]() {
if (use_search_group) {
mask.foreach_index(
[&](const auto index) { out_group.add(search_group[index], index); });
}
});

This comment is a bit vague, but I'm finding it hard to keep track of the separate group_use and group_to_find_use conditions. I wonder if the first condition could be handled with by splitting logic into a separate function, like SampleCurveFunction does with its sample_curve lambda.

This comment is a bit vague, but I'm finding it hard to keep track of the separate `group_use` and `group_to_find_use` conditions. I wonder if the first condition could be handled with by splitting logic into a separate function, like `SampleCurveFunction` does with its `sample_curve` lambda.
for (int key : in_group.keys()) {
for (const int key : in_group.keys()) {
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

No strong opinion, but using regular = assignment seems more consistent here.

No strong opinion, but using regular `=` assignment seems more consistent here.
/* Never empty. */
const Span<int64_t> self_points = group_use ? in_group.lookup(key) : mask.indices();
const Span<int64_t> search_points = group_to_find_use ? out_group.lookup(key) : self_points;
const IndexMask self_points(use_group ? IndexMask(in_group.lookup(key)) : mask);
const IndexMask search_points(use_search_group ? IndexMask(out_group.lookup(key)) :
self_points);
if (search_points.is_empty()) {
indices.as_mutable_span().fill_indices(self_points, 0);
indices.as_mutable_span().fill_indices(self_points, -1);
continue;
}

It seems like creating a KD tree for every group ID will mean that the KD tree for the same set of search points will potentially be built multiple times. There should probably be some way to avoid building a tree multiple times for the same key.

Overall this area looks much cleaner than the last time I checked though!

It seems like creating a KD tree for every group ID will mean that the KD tree for the same set of search points will potentially be built multiple times. There should probably be some way to avoid building a tree multiple times for the same key. Overall this area looks much cleaner than the last time I checked though!

After you point it out... it seems I made some kind of logical error in the implementation of switching groups when iterating over them. Or not .. i need to redo this part of the code

After you point it out... it seems I made some kind of logical error in the implementation of switching groups when iterating over them. Or not .. i need to redo this part of the code
Review

Remove empty line between group_indexing declaration and loop that creates it

Remove empty line between `group_indexing` declaration and loop that creates it
KDTree_3d *tree = BLI_kdtree_3d_new(search_points.size());
for (const int64_t index : search_points) {
BLI_kdtree_3d_insert(tree, index, positions[index]);
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

We can't selectively ignore the mask actually, it may be incorrect to write the output to non-selected indices. So this check really has to be mask.size() == domain_size

We can't selectively ignore the mask actually, it may be incorrect to write the output to non-selected indices. So this check really has to be `mask.size() == domain_size`

I see.
Just if domain size is 10000, mask is 9999, is no much sense to compute the cheap mask. I think, is better to just allocate all elements if cheap mask is used.

I see. Just if domain size is 10000, mask is 9999, is no much sense to compute the cheap mask. I think, is better to just allocate all elements if cheap mask is used.
}
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

Replace this with const bool mask_is_full = mask.size() == domain_size;

Replace this with `const bool mask_is_full = mask.size() == domain_size;`
BLI_kdtree_3d_balance(tree);
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

int key -> const int key

`int key` -> `const int key`
threading::parallel_for(self_points.index_range(), 128, [&](const IndexRange range) {
threading::parallel_for(self_points.index_range(), 512, [&](const IndexRange range) {
for (const int64_t index : self_points.slice(range)) {
const int index_of_nearest = kdtree_find_neighboard(tree, positions[index], index);
if (index_of_nearest == -1) {
indices[index] = index;
}
else {
indices[index] = index_of_nearest;
}
indices[index] = this->kdtree_find_neighboard(tree, positions[index], index);
}
});
@ -130,6 +108,22 @@ class IndexOfNearestFieldInput final : public bke::GeometryFieldInput {
return VArray<int>::ForContainer(std::move(indices));
}
protected:
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

While forest is used as a technical term for a graph containing multiple trees, I don't think the term should be used for a collection of multiple independent kd trees. Just use kdtrees.

While forest is used as a technical term for a graph containing multiple trees, I don't think the term should be used for a collection of multiple independent kd trees. Just use `kdtrees`.

If i do merge parallel_fors below, i can delete this vector.

If i do merge `parallel_for`s below, i can delete this vector.
int kdtree_find_neighboard(KDTree_3d *tree, const float3 &position, int index) const
{
return BLI_kdtree_3d_find_nearest_cb(
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

I think this should be !mask_is_cheap

I think this should be `!mask_is_cheap`

I was isn't invented the best name, mask_is_cheap == true if computing of indices make sense and cheap mask is used.

I was isn't invented the best name, `mask_is_cheap` == true if computing of indices make sense and cheap mask is used.
tree,

TBH I think it's better to just use int64_t here to avoid duplicating the functions above. Eventually when IndexMask is refactored, these could benefit from using that, and the int64_t will make that more clear too.

TBH I think it's better to just use `int64_t` here to avoid duplicating the functions above. Eventually when `IndexMask` is refactored, these could benefit from using that, and the `int64_t` will make that more clear too.
position,
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

Vector -> Array here

`Vector` -> `Array` here
0,
[index](const int other_new_i, const float * /*co*/, float /*dist_sq*/) {
if (index == other_new_i) {
return 0;
}

domain_size > 1024 && use_cheap_mask -> domain_size > 1024 && !mask_is_full

`domain_size > 1024 && use_cheap_mask` -> `domain_size > 1024 && !mask_is_full`
return 1;

Are grain_size is a power of 2?

Are `grain_size` is a power of 2?

They don't need to be powers of two, though I think it can be slightly beneficial. Since these numbers are a bit arbitrary anyway I started using powers of two.

They don't need to be powers of two, though I think it can be slightly beneficial. Since these numbers are a bit arbitrary anyway I started using powers of two.

I remember fixing a bug, only related to the fact that there was no power of 2x.
For the blur node, I made the search function for the top bit part in the threading namespace.

I remember fixing a bug, only related to the fact that there was no power of 2x. For the blur node, I made the search function for the top bit part in the threading namespace.
});
}

Why tree_masks[i] and evaluate_masks[i] is groups with the same id? this isn't sorted somether or protected, that mask isn't avoid all elements of some grouop and create offset for all other groups even all of that added in same order.

It seems that trying to use a mask to multiply all user groups by groups from the mask leads to much more overhead in most cases.
If you don't do some kind of analogue of a tree, then it's like doing a boolean through mask1 * mask2. When there is something like bvh. so I think it's easier to just calculate everything. I'm not sure there are many cases now where the mask can actually be a small part.

Why `tree_masks[i]` and `evaluate_masks[i]` is groups with the same id? this isn't sorted somether or protected, that mask isn't avoid all elements of some grouop and create offset for all other groups even all of that added in same order. It seems that trying to use a mask to multiply all user groups by groups from the mask leads to much more overhead in most cases. If you don't do some kind of analogue of a tree, then it's like doing a boolean through mask1 * mask2. When there is something like bvh. so I think it's easier to just calculate everything. I'm not sure there are many cases now where the mask can actually be a small part.

Oh, great point! I think it's still worth having a separate evaluation mask. Even just the set position node with a small selection would benefit from it, I think kd tree lookups are fairly expensive. I guess both masks have to be created at the same time.

Oh, great point! I think it's still worth having a separate evaluation mask. Even just the set position node with a small selection would benefit from it, I think kd tree lookups are fairly expensive. I guess both masks have to be created at the same time.
public:
void for_each_field_input_recursive(FunctionRef<void(const FieldInput &)> fn) const
{
positions_.node().for_each_field_input_recursive(fn);
@ -160,14 +154,34 @@ class IndexOfNearestFieldInput final : public bke::GeometryFieldInput {
static void node_geo_exec(GeoNodeExecParams params)
{
const Field<float3> position = params.extract_input<Field<float3>>("Position");
Field<float3> position_field = params.extract_input<Field<float3>>("Position");
const Field<int> self_group = params.extract_input<Field<int>>("Self Group ID");
const Field<int> search_group = params.extract_input<Field<int>>("Group ID to Search");
Field<int> self_group_field = params.extract_input<Field<int>>("Self Group ID");
Field<int> search_group_field = params.extract_input<Field<int>>("Nearest Group ID");
params.set_output("Index",
Field<int>{std::make_shared<IndexOfNearestFieldInput>(
std::move(position), std::move(self_group), std::move(search_group))});
Field<int> index_of_nearest_field(std::make_shared<IndexOfNearestFieldInput>(
std::move(position_field), std::move(self_group_field), std::move(search_group_field)));
if (params.output_is_required("Index")) {
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved Outdated

If using std::move with these variables, don't declare them const.

I think it would be fine to retrieve them directly in make_shared though, rather than having temporary variables.

If using `std::move` with these variables, don't declare them const. I think it would be fine to retrieve them directly in `make_shared` though, rather than having temporary variables.
static auto clamp_fn = mf::build::SI1_SO<int, int>(
"Clamp",
[](const int index) { return math::max(0, index); },
mf::build::exec_presets::AllSpanOrSingle());
auto clamp_op = std::make_shared<FieldOperation>(
FieldOperation(std::move(clamp_fn), {index_of_nearest_field}));
params.set_output("Index", Field<int>(clamp_op, 0));
}
if (params.output_is_required("Valid")) {
static auto valid_fn = mf::build::SI1_SO<int, bool>(
"Valid Index",
[](const int index) { return index != -1; },
mf::build::exec_presets::AllSpanOrSingle());
auto valid_op = std::make_shared<FieldOperation>(
FieldOperation(std::move(valid_fn), {std::move(index_of_nearest_field)}));
params.set_output("Valid", Field<bool>(valid_op, 0));
}
}
} // namespace blender::nodes::node_geo_index_of_nearest_cc