On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
R's interpreter is fairly slow due in large part to the allocation of
argument lists
I wrote once the benchmark mentioned in Stefan's post (based on initial
work by Stephan Steinhaus), and it is still available for those who
would like to update it. Note that it is lacking some checking of the
results to make sure that calculation is not only faster, but correct!
Now, I'll
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
R's interpreter is fairly slow due in large part to the allocation of
argument lists and the cost of lookups of variables, including ones
like [- that are assembled and looked up as strings on every call.
Wow, I had no idea the
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
R's interpreter is fairly slow due in large part to the allocation of
argument lists and the cost of lookups of variables, including ones
like [- that are assembled and looked up as strings
Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
R's interpreter is fairly slow due in large part to the allocation of
argument lists and the cost of lookups of variables, including ones
like [- that are assembled and looked up as strings on every call.
Wow,
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
R's interpreter is fairly slow due in large part to the allocation of
argument lists and the cost of lookups of variables,
I'd
Thanks for the explanations of the internals.
I understand about the 'redefining log' problem in the interpreter,
but I wasn't aware of the NAMED counter. In both cases, beyond static
analysis, dynamic Java compilers do a pretty good job, but I don't
know if Java bytecodes are suitable for R,
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:25:38 +0530 Ajay Shah ajays...@mayin.org wrote:
AS system.time(for (i in 1:1000) {a[i] - a[i] + 1})
AS I wonder what we're doing wrong!
it is no secret that R does badly with loops. Thats why it is
recommended to use vectorized operations.
Another approach is just in
Ajay Shah ajayshah at mayin.org writes:
Here's a small R program:
---
a - rep(1,1000)
system.time(a - a + 1)
system.time(for (i in 1:1000) {a[i] - a[i] + 1})
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:59:29PM +0100, Stefan Grosse wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:25:38 +0530 Ajay Shah ajays...@mayin.org wrote:
AS system.time(for (i in 1:1000) {a[i] - a[i] + 1})
AS I wonder what we're doing wrong!
it is no secret that R does badly with loops. Thats why it is
Ajay Shah ajayshah at mayin.org writes:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:59:29PM +0100, Stefan Grosse wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:25:38 +0530 Ajay Shah ajayshah at mayin.org wrote:
AS system.time(for (i in 1:1000) {a[i] - a[i] + 1})
AS I wonder what we're doing wrong!
it is no
As for jit and Ra, that was immediate reaction too but I found that jit does
not help on your example. But I concur fully with what Ben said --- use the
tool that is appropriate for the task at hand. If your task is running for
loops, Matlab does it faster and you have Matlab, well then you
On 03-Jan-09 18:28:03, Ben Bolker wrote:
Ajay Shah ajayshah at mayin.org writes:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:59:29PM +0100, Stefan Grosse wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:25:38 +0530 Ajay Shah ajayshah at
mayin.org wrote:
AS system.time(for (i in 1:1000) {a[i] - a[i] + 1})
AS I
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Ajay Shah ajays...@mayin.org wrote:
As for jit and Ra, that was immediate reaction too but I found that jit does
not help on your example. But I concur fully with what Ben said --- use the
tool that is appropriate for the task at hand. If your task is running
I don't have octave (on the same machine) to compare these with.
And I don't have MatLab at all. So I can't provide a comparison
on that front, I'm afraid.
Ted.
Just to add some timings, I was running 1000 repetitions (adding up to
a=1001) on a notebook with core 2 duo T7200
R 2.8.1 on
(Ted Harding) wrote:
On 03-Jan-09 18:28:03, Ben Bolker wrote:
Ajay Shah ajayshah at mayin.org writes:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:59:29PM +0100, Stefan Grosse wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:25:38 +0530 Ajay Shah ajayshah at
mayin.org wrote:
AS system.time(for (i in
Ajay Shah wrote:
As for jit and Ra, that was immediate reaction too but I found that jit does
not help on your example. But I concur fully with what Ben said --- use the
tool that is appropriate for the task at hand. If your task is running for
loops, Matlab does it faster and you have
On 03/01/2009 1:37 PM, Ajay Shah wrote:
As for jit and Ra, that was immediate reaction too but I found that jit does
not help on your example. But I concur fully with what Ben said --- use the
tool that is appropriate for the task at hand. If your task is running for
loops, Matlab does it
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 03/01/2009 1:37 PM, Ajay Shah wrote:
As for jit and Ra, that was immediate reaction too but I found that jit
does
not help on your example. But I concur fully with what Ben said --- use
the
tool that is appropriate for the task at hand. If your
On 3 January 2009 at 18:02, l...@stat.uiowa.edu wrote:
| The current byte code compiler available from my web site speeds this
| (highly artificial) example by about a factor of 4. The experimental
| byte code engine I am currently working on (and that can't yet do much
| more than an example
20 matches
Mail list logo
