search for: qdiag

...q max neval # diaglike 579224.436 664853.7450 720372.8105 712649.706 767281.5070 931976.707 100 # vec 334.843 339.8365 568.7808 646.799 663.5825 1445.067 100 But I'm still wondering why diag() uses c()...? With it being so slow, I'd be inclined to write a qdiag() without the c() and just use that the next time I need matrix algebra. Any insight would be appreciated; thanks! -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Why-is-the-diag-function-so-slow-for-extraction-tp4706780.html Sent from the R devel mailing list archive at Nabble.c...

...would not dispatch. Best, luke On Mon, 4 May 2015, peter dalgaard wrote: > >> On 04 May 2015, at 19:59 , franknarf <by.hook.or at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> But I'm still wondering why diag() uses c()...? With it being so slow, I'd >> be inclined to write a qdiag() without the c() and just use that the next >> time I need matrix algebra. Any insight would be appreciated; thanks! > > Well, there are two possibilities: Either it is deliberate or it isn't. > > The latter isn't too unlikely, given that the effect is seen for large matr...

> On 04 May 2015, at 19:59 , franknarf <by.hook.or at gmail.com> wrote: > > But I'm still wondering why diag() uses c()...? With it being so slow, I'd > be inclined to write a qdiag() without the c() and just use that the next > time I need matrix algebra. Any insight would be appreciated; thanks! Well, there are two possibilities: Either it is deliberate or it isn't. The latter isn't too unlikely, given that the effect is seen for large matrices. I would appear...

...gt; On Mon, 4 May 2015, peter dalgaard wrote: > > >> On 04 May 2015, at 19:59 , franknarf <by.hook.or at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> But I'm still wondering why diag() uses c()...? With it being so slow, >>> I'd >>> be inclined to write a qdiag() without the c() and just use that the next >>> time I need matrix algebra. Any insight would be appreciated; thanks! >>> >> >> Well, there are two possibilities: Either it is deliberate or it isn't. >> >> The latter isn't too unlikely, given that...