Ivan, Simon,
Thanks for the replies.
I can work around the limitation. I currently either divide the data
into shards or use a list with (long) vectors depending on what I am
trying to do. But I have to transform between the two representations
which takes time and memory and often need more code than I would have
if I could have used data.frames.
Being able to create large (> 2^31-1 rows) data.frames and doing some
basic things like selecting rows and columns, would already be really
nice. That would also allow package maintainers to start supporting
these data.frames. I imagine getting large data.frames working in
functions like lm, is not trivial and lm might not support this any time
soon. However, a package like biglm might.
But from what you are saying, I get the impression that this is not
something that is being actively worked on. I must say, my hands a kind
of itching to try.
Best,
Jan
On 03-07-2024 09:22, Simon Urbanek wrote:
The second point is not really an issue - R already uses numerics for
larger-than-32-bit indexing at R level and it works just fine for objects up to
ca. 72 petabytes.
However, the first one is a bit more relevant than one would think. At one
point I have experimented with allowing data frames with more than 2^31 rows,
but it breaks in many places - some quite unexpected. Beside dim() there is
also the issue with (non-expanded) row names. Overall, it is a lot more work -
some would have to be done in R but some would require changes to packages as
well.
(In practice I use sharded data frames for large data which removes the limit
and allows parallel processing - but requires support from the methods that
will be applied to them).
Cheers,
Simon
On Jul 2, 2024, at 16:04, Ivan Krylov via R-devel <r-devel@r-project.org> wrote:
В Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:52:20 +0200
Jan van der Laan <rh...@eoos.dds.nl> пишет:
What is the status of supporting long vectors in data.frames (e.g.
data.frames with more than 2^31 records)? Is this something that is
being worked on? Is there a time line for this? Is this something I
can contribute to?
Apologies if you've already received a better answer off-list.
From from my limited understanding, the problem with supporting
larger-than-(2^31-1) dimensions has multiple facets:
- In many parts of R code, there's the assumption that dim() is
of integer type. That wouldn't be a problem by itself, except...
- R currently lacks a native 64-bit integer type. About a year ago
Gabe Becker mentioned that Luke Tierney has been considering
improvements in this direction, but it's hard to introduce 64-bit
integers without making the user worry even more about data types
(numeric != integer != 64-bit integer) or introducing a lot of
overhead (64-bit integers being twice as large as 32-bit ones and,
depending on the workload, frequently redundant).
- Two-dimensional objects eventually get transformed into matrices and
handed to LAPACK for linear algebra operations. Currently, the
interface used by R to talk to BLAS and LAPACK only supports 32-bit
signed integers for lengths. 64-bit BLASes and LAPACKs do exist
(e.g. OpenBLAS can be compiled with 64-bit lengths), but we haven't
taught R to use them.
(This isn't limited to array dimensions, by the way. If you try to
svd() a 40000 by 40000 matrix, it'll try to ask for temporary memory
with length that overflows a signed 32-bit integer, get a much
shorter allocation instead, promptly overflow the buffer and
crash the process.)
As you see, it's interconnected; work on one thing will involve the
other two.
--
Best regards,
Ivan
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
