If you want to get a comparable result, then run the same code. You may not want a comparable result though... your version straightens out the issue Peter was puzzled by. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
On November 4, 2016 11:35:02 AM PDT, Berend Hasselman <b...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> On 4 Nov 2016, at 19:27, Berend Hasselman <b...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 4 Nov 2016, at 16:41, Jeff Newmiller <jdnew...@dcn.davis.ca.us> >wrote: >>> >>> Sara wins on memory use. >>> >>> Rui wins on speed. >>> >>> Bert wins on clarity. >>> >>> library(microbenchmark) >>> >>> N <- 1000 >>> x <- matrix( runif( N*N ), ncol=N ) >>> y <- seq.int( N ) >>> >>> microbenchmark( { t( y * t(x) ) } >>> , { x %*% diag( y ) } >>> , { sweep( x, 2, y, `*` ) } >>> ) >>> Unit: milliseconds >>> expr min lq median uq > max neval >>> { t(y * t(x)) } 6.659562 7.475414 7.871341 8.182623 >47.01105 100 >>> { x %*% diag(y) } 9.859292 11.014021 11.281334 11.733825 >48.79463 100 >>> { sweep(x, 2, y, `*`) } 16.535938 17.682175 18.283572 18.712342 >55.47159 100 >> >> >> I get different results with R3.2.2 on Mac OS X (using reference >BLAS). >> > >Correction: I meant R3.3.2 > >Berend ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see 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.