David, 'assign' is slower than '<-':
## median expr
## 1 0.1440 X <- letters
## 2 0.4420 .Internal(assign("X", letters, e, F))
## 3 1.1820 e[["X"]] <- letters
## 4 1.2570
All,
So that suggests that .GlobalEnv[["X"]] is more efficient than get("X",
pos=1L). What about .GlobalEnv[["X"]] <- value, compared to assign("X",
value)?
Dave
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Peter Haverty
wrote:
> Thanks Winston! I'm amazed that "[[" beats calling the .Internal
> directly
Thanks Winston! I'm amazed that "[[" beats calling the .Internal
directly. I guess the difference between .Primitive vs. .Internal is
pretty significant for things on this time scale.
NULL meaning NULL and NULL meaning undefined would lead to the same path
for much of my code. I'll be swapping
I've looked at related speed issues in the past, and have a couple
related points to add. (I've put the info below at
http://rpubs.com/wch/46428.)
There’s a significant amount of overhead just from calling the R
function get(). This is true even when you skip the pos argument and
provide envir. Fo
Hi All,
I've been looking into speeding up the loading of packages that use a lot
of S4. After profiling I noticed the "exists" function accounts for a
surprising fraction of the time. I have some thoughts about speeding up
exists (below). More to the point of this post, Martin M�chler noted tha
