On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Martin Maechler wrote:
> Hi Ivo,
>
>> "IU" == Ivo Ugrina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> on Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:13:10 +0100 writes:
>
>IU> Martin Maechler wrote:
>>> do you have evidence for your belief?
>>> i.e. a set of system.time(.) calls where you see the
Hi Martin,
Martin Maechler wrote:
> that's quite convincing; thank you!
> and I can verify part of it on my computer.
:D
> I think I'd just commit your signrank.c
> (with a few cosmetic changes) to the sources, right?
Right!
There is no need for SIGNRANK_MAX in src/nmath/nmath.h anymore.
> Than
Hi Ivo,
> "IU" == Ivo Ugrina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:13:10 +0100 writes:
IU> Martin Maechler wrote:
>> do you have evidence for your belief?
>> i.e. a set of system.time(.) calls where you see the
>> difference?
IU> system.time(dsignrank(1751
Martin Maechler wrote:
> do you have evidence for your belief?
> i.e. a set of system.time(.) calls where you see the
> difference?
system.time(dsignrank(17511, 400))
user system elapsed
1.010 0.120 1.145
system.time(dsignrank((0:17511), 400))
user system elapsed
1.250.1
Hi Ivo,
> "IU" == Ivo Ugrina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:03:37 +0100 writes:
IU> I took some time and liberty and tried to improve
IU> existing implementation of SignRank functions
IU> in R. (dsignrank, ...)
IU> As I have seen they've been based on cs
I took some time and liberty and tried to improve
existing implementation of SignRank functions
in R. (dsignrank, ...)
As I have seen they've been based on csignrank.
So I modified csignrank and, I believe,
improved calculation time and memory efficiency.
The idea is basically the same. I use th
