search for: wilcox_max

...` runs in 8 > microseconds in the current version, but `qwilcox(0.5, 50, 51)` runs in 5 > milliseconds. The new version runs in roughly 1 millisecond for both. This > is probably because of internal logic that requires many more `free/calloc` > calls if either population is larger than `WILCOX_MAX`, which is set to 50. > Also because cwilcox_sigma has to be evaluated, and this is slightly more demanding since it uses k%d. There is a tradeoff here between memory usage and time of execution. I am not a heavy user of the U test but I think the typical use case does not involve several hundr...

...3, 200, 400) ) user system elapsed 0.040 0.000 0.07 RAM: < 1MB There is no more need for wilcox_free at [dpq]wilcox in src/library/stats/distn.R (every other call after the first one with the same m,n will just read the results from the array so it will be really fast) and for #define WILCOX_MAX 50 in src/nmath/nmath.h p.s. modified files are in the attachment have fun, -- Ivo Ugrina << http://web.math.hr/~iugrina >> Teaching/Research Assistant at Department of Mathematics University of Zagreb, Croatia -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecifi...

...`qwilcox(0.5,50,50)` runs in 8 microseconds in the current version, but `qwilcox(0.5, 50, 51)` runs in 5 milliseconds. The new version runs in roughly 1 millisecond for both. This is probably because of internal logic that requires many more `free/calloc` calls if either population is larger than `WILCOX_MAX`, which is set to 50. I?m hopeful that this can be optimized to be suitable for inclusion in R. Lower performance for population sizes below 50 is not ideal, since `wilcox.test` switches to non-exact testing for population sizes above 50. -Aidan Benchmarking results on my machine using `microben...