Oops, such an amateur mistake. Thanks a lot for your quick response.
Regards
TP
On 03/05/2015 06:49 PM, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On 05/03/2015 14:55, Tadeáš Palusga wrote:
Hi,
I'm using this mailing list for the first time and I hope this is the
right one. I don't think that the following
See weightedMean() in the matrixStats package. It's optimized for
data type, speed and memory and implemented in native code so it can
avoid some of these intermediate copies. It's a few times faster than
weighted.mean[.default]();
library(matrixStats)
library(microbenchmark)
n - 5000
x -
On 05/03/2015 14:55, Tadeáš Palusga wrote:
Hi,
I'm using this mailing list for the first time and I hope this is the
right one. I don't think that the following is a bug but it can be a
performance issue.
By my opinion, there is no need to filter by [w != 0] in last sum of
Hi,
I'm using this mailing list for the first time and I hope this is the
right one. I don't think that the following is a bug but it can be a
performance issue.
By my opinion, there is no need to filter by [w != 0] in last sum of
weighted.mean.default method defined in
