Hi,
I understand that the glm.fit calls LINPACK fortran routines instead of
LAPACK because it can handle the 'rank deficiency problem'. If my data
matrix is not rank deficient, would a glm.fit function which runs on
LAPACK be faster? Would this be worthwhile to convert glm.fit to use
LAPACK?
: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [R] glm.fit to use LAPACK instead of LINPACK
To: r-help@R-project.org r-help@r-project.org
Hi,
I understand that the glm.fit calls LINPACK fortran routines instead of
LAPACK because it can handle the 'rank deficiency problem'. If my data
of calls to pmin and pmax.
Before trying to change very tricky Fortran code you owe it to
yourself to check that the potential gains would be.
- Original Message -
From: Ted tchi...@sickkids.ca
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [R] glm.fit to use LAPACK instead
] glm.fit to use LAPACK instead of LINPACK
To: r-help@R-project.org r-help@r-project.org
Hi,
I understand that the glm.fit calls LINPACK fortran routines instead of
LAPACK because it can handle the 'rank deficiency problem'. If my data
matrix is not rank deficient, would a glm.fit function which runs
Hi,
I understand that the glm.fit calls LINPACK fortran routines instead of
LAPACK because it can handle the 'rank deficiency problem'. If my data
matrix is not rank deficient, would a glm.fit function which runs on
LAPACK be faster? Would this be worthwhile to convert glm.fit to use
5 matches
Mail list logo