On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Gene Leynes gleyne...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought the apply functions are faster than for loops, but my most
recent test shows that apply actually takes a significantly longer than a
for loop. Am I missing something?
Check Rnews for an article discussing proper
On 12/07/10 08:16, Liviu Andronic wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Gene Leynesgleyne...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Check Rnews for an article discussing proper usage of apply and for.
Liviu
I am guessing you are referencing
@article{Rnews:Ligges+Fox:2008
On 09/07/10 21:19, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/07/2010 4:11 PM, Gene Leynes wrote:
I thought the apply functions are faster than for loops, but my most
recent test shows that apply actually takes a significantly longer
than a
for loop. Am I missing something?
Probably not. apply() needs
Yes, that's actually quite helpful.
I think this gets to the point that Patrick Burns was making in Ch. 4 of the
Inferno book. I think the sapply is breaking the problem into chunks that
make it more efficient.
This is a prototype of a function that I will probably use quite often, so
it's
I thought the apply functions are faster than for loops, but my most
recent test shows that apply actually takes a significantly longer than a
for loop. Am I missing something?
It doesn't matter much if I do column wise calculations rather than row wise
## Example of how apply is SLOWER than
On 09/07/2010 4:11 PM, Gene Leynes wrote:
I thought the apply functions are faster than for loops, but my most
recent test shows that apply actually takes a significantly longer than a
for loop. Am I missing something?
Probably not. apply() needs to figure out the shape of the results it
I should add that I'm using R 2.10.1 on a Windows 7 machine, thanks!
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Gene Leynes
gleyne...@gmail.comgleynes%...@gmail.com
wrote:
I thought the apply functions are faster than for loops, but my most
recent test shows that apply actually takes a significantly
7 matches
Mail list logo