Patrick Burns wrote:
> If the goal is to "look" professional, then
> 'replicate' probably suits. If the goal is to
> compute as fast as possible, then that isn't
> the case because 'replicate' is really a 'for'
> loop in disguise and there are other ways.
>
> Here's one other way:
>
> function (size, replicates, distfun, ...)
> {
>
> colMeans(array(distfun(size * replicates, ...), c(size,
> replicates)))
> }
a naive benchmark:
f.rep = function(n, m) replicate(n, rnorm(m))
f.pat = function(n, m) colMeans(array(rnorm(n*m), c(n, m)))
system.time(f.pat(1000, 1000))
system.time(f.rep(1000, 1000))
makes me believe that there is no significant difference in efficiency
between the 'professionally-looking' replicate-based solution and the
'as fast as possible' pat's solution.
vQ
______________________________________________
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.
