On 7 January 2011 at 12:54, Romain Francois wrote:
| Le 05/01/11 14:01, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
| >
| > On 5 January 2011 at 10:55, Cedric Ginestet wrote:
| > | Dear All,
| > |
| > | Here are some simulations that I have run this morning. Romain's
suggestion to
| > | compute xV.size() before
Le 05/01/11 14:01, Dirk Eddelbuettel a écrit :
On 5 January 2011 at 10:55, Cedric Ginestet wrote:
| Dear All,
|
| Here are some simulations that I have run this morning. Romain's suggestion to
| compute xV.size() before the loop and Douglas' idea of using accumulate appear
| to work best. Howeve
On 5 January 2011 at 10:55, Cedric Ginestet wrote:
| Dear All,
|
| Here are some simulations that I have run this morning. Romain's suggestion to
| compute xV.size() before the loop and Douglas' idea of using accumulate appear
| to work best. However, both are substantially slower than the r-base
Dear All,
Here are some simulations that I have run this morning. Romain's
suggestion to compute xV.size() before the loop and Douglas' idea of
using accumulate appear to work best. However, both are substantially
slower than the r-base function.
I have also included two more versions: (i) o
Le 04/01/11 19:09, Douglas Bates a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Douglas Bates wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Romain Francois
wrote:
Le 04/01/11 17:42, Romain Francois a écrit :
Le 04/01/11 16:35, Andrew Redd a écrit :
Cedric,
This was addressed about 2 weeks ago on t
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Douglas Bates wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Romain Francois
> wrote:
>> Le 04/01/11 17:42, Romain Francois a écrit :
>>>
>>> Le 04/01/11 16:35, Andrew Redd a écrit :
Cedric,
This was addressed about 2 weeks ago on the list, please read t
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Romain Francois
wrote:
> Le 04/01/11 17:42, Romain Francois a écrit :
>>
>> Le 04/01/11 16:35, Andrew Redd a écrit :
>>>
>>> Cedric,
>>> This was addressed about 2 weeks ago on the list, please read the
>>> archives. Basic point, Rcpp/sugar will not be faster than
Le 04/01/11 17:42, Romain Francois a écrit :
Le 04/01/11 16:35, Andrew Redd a écrit :
Cedric,
This was addressed about 2 weeks ago on the list, please read the
archives. Basic point, Rcpp/sugar will not be faster than basic
functions in R. Do something more complicated to see improvements. I
wou
Le 04/01/11 16:35, Andrew Redd a écrit :
Cedric,
This was addressed about 2 weeks ago on the list, please read the
archives. Basic point, Rcpp/sugar will not be faster than basic
functions in R. Do something more complicated to see improvements. I
would suggest something that involves lots of
On 4 January 2011 at 15:14, Cedric Ginestet wrote:
| Happy new year to everyone,
|
| I have made a very straightforward comparison of the performance of standard
R,
| Rcpp function and sugar, and found that the latter produces the poorest
| performance. Let me know what you think and how I could
Cedric,
This was addressed about 2 weeks ago on the list, please read the archives.
Basic point, Rcpp/sugar will not be faster than basic functions in R. Do
something more complicated to see improvements. I would suggest something
that involves lots of copies and edits, that will mess with R's m
Happy new year to everyone,
I have made a very straightforward comparison of the performance of
standard R, Rcpp function and sugar, and found that the latter produces
the poorest performance. Let me know what you think and how I could
improve such performance assessment.
###
12 matches
Mail list logo
