A small test indicates that the following may be the fastest method
(although all are pretty fast)
has.na <- !all(complete.cases(x))
Thanks Jim and Phil for your suggestions.
/Ali
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 19:03, Jim Holtman <jholt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ?complete.cases
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 18:53, Ali Tofigh <alix.tof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is the best way to detect whether or not a (potentially large)
>> matrix contains missing values (NAs) or not? I use
>>
>> if (sum(is.na(x)) > 0) {...}
>>
>> are there more efficient ways?
>>
>> /Ali
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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.
