This seems to work quite well and gives an ~85% speed increase compared to the for loop. Thanks a bunch!
Peter Ehlers wrote: > > Or maybe aperm() is faster: > > max(colSums(aperm(yourArray, c(2,1,3)))) > > -Peter Ehlers > > Peter Ehlers wrote: >> Does this >> >> max(apply(yourArray, 3, rowSums)) >> >> give you what you want? >> >> -Peter Ehlers >> >> Will Carr wrote: >>> Working with an NxMxO sized matrix, currently I can do this in my code: >>> >>> if (max(colSums(array)) >= number) >>> >>> But to get an equivalent result using rowSums, I have to do: >>> >>> for (i in 1:10) >>> { >>> if (max(rowSums(array[,,i])) >= number) } >>> >>> I'm running both in a much larger loop that loops millions of times, so >>> speed and such is quite a big factor for me. Currently, the colSums line >>> uses about 1/10th as much time as the rowSums' for loop, and the for >>> loop >>> actually took as much time as the rest of my code combined took to >>> execute. >>> Is there a faster way than using a for loop and rowSums? >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-help@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >> PLEASE do read the posting guide >> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. >> >> > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/command-similar-to-colSums-for-rowSums-tp931394p931540.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.