Prof Brian Ripley a �crit :

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Philippe Hup� wrote:



Andrew C. Ward a �crit :



Dear Philippe,

Perhaps you could try a different graphics device (maybe
postscript). On my machine, the time differences were all 1
second rather than the 3 you reported.If 300s is really
too long for you, you could get a new computer or run your
script on a faster one.



I have a computer with 3GHz processor (Pentium IV) and 2 Go of RAM so I don't think this is a matter of computer performance :).



My lowly 1.4GHz P4M laptop does it in 2.5 secs, so there does seem to be a performance problem with your computer.


BTW, the way to time a command is to use system.time()



Andrew C. Ward

CAPE Centre
Department of Chemical Engineering
The University of Queensland
Brisbane Qld 4072 Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Quoting Philippe Hup� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:






hello,

I use R1.7.1 under winXP and I am running the following
script example :


for (i in 1:10)
{
x <- rnorm(100)
png( paste("D:/essai",i,".png",sep=""))
plot(x)
t1 <- Sys.time()
dev.off()
t2 <- Sys.time()
print(t2-t1)
}


at each step, it takes about 3 seconds to shut down the
graphic device. I want to generate about one hundred of image and of
course it takes too much time. Is there any trick ?


Philippe

______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help





.











I have done the same thing under Debian/sid wiht R1.7.1 and it takes almost 0 second !! Then, is there any problem with winXP ?

--

--------------------------------------------------

Philippe Hup�
Institut Curie - Equipe Bioinformatique
26, rue d'Ulm - 75005 PARIS France
+33 (0)1 42 34 65 29

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help

Reply via email to