On 07-12-2012, at 19:37, Spencer Graves wrote:
> On 12/7/2012 9:40 AM, Berend Hasselman wrote:
>>>
>>> benchmark(eta1 <- f1(X, B, x, sem1), eta2 <- f2(X, B, x, sem1), eta3 <-
>>> f3(X, B, x, sem1),
>> + eta4 <- f4(X, B, x, sem1), eta5 <- f5(X, B, x, sem1), eta6 <-
>> f6(X, B, x, sem1),
>> + replications=10, columns=c("test","elapsed","relative"))
>> test elapsed relative
>> 1 eta1 <- f1(X, B, x, sem1) 1.873 1.207
>> 2 eta2 <- f2(X, B, x, sem1) 1.552 1.000
>> 3 eta3 <- f3(X, B, x, sem1) 1.807 1.164
>> 4 eta4 <- f4(X, B, x, sem1) 1.841 1.186
>> 5 eta5 <- f5(X, B, x, sem1) 1.852 1.193
>> 6 eta6 <- f6(X, B, x, sem1) 1.601 1.032
>>
>> As you can see using the compiler package is beneficial speedwise.
>> f2 and f6, both the the result of using the compiler package, are the
>> quickest.
>> It's quite likely that more can be eked out of this.
>
>
> So the compiler (f2, f4, f6) provided a slight improvement over f1 and
> f3 but not f2, and in any event, the improvement was not great.
I don't understand the "but not f2".
And I don't understand the conclusion for (f2,f4,f6). f4 is a compiled version
of f3 and is slower than its non compiled version.
f2 and f6 are the quickest compiled versions.
Indeed the improvement is not earth shattering but it does demonstrate what you
can achieve by using the compiler package.
Berend
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
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.
