similar to: line profiling

Hello, (This is follow up from this thread: http://www.nabble.com/execution-time-of-.packages-td22304833.html but with a different focus) I am often confused by the result of the profiler, when a loop is involved. Consider these two scripts: script1: Rprof( ) x <- numeric( ) for( i in 1:10000){ x <- c( x, rnorm(10) ) } Rprof( NULL ) print( summaryRprof( ) ) script2:

Dear Rs: Hi, I am trying to read a big text file (nrows=243440, ncols=144). It seems the computational time of all the read methods (scan,readtable,read.delim) is not linear to the number of rows I want to read in: things became really slow once I tried to read in 100000 lines compare to 10000 lines). If I am reading the profiling result right, I guess scan wouldn't help either. My

I have some trouble interpreting the output from profiling. I have read the help pages Rprof, summaryRprof and consult the R extensions manual, but I still have problems understanding the output. Basically the output consist of self.time and total.time. I have the understanding that total.time is the time spent in a given function including any subcalls or child functions or whatever the

Hello, Appending information to the profiler's output seems to generate problems. Here is a small example of code : <code r> require(boot) Rprof( memory.profiling = TRUE) Rprof(NULL) for(i in 1:2){ Rprof( memory.profiling = TRUE, append = TRUE) example(boot) Rprof(NULL) } </code> The problem is that the file Rprof.out contains more than once the header information: $ grep

Rprof seems to ignore all time spent inside system() calls. E.g., this simple example actually takes about 10 seconds, but Rprof thinks the total time is only 0.12 seconds: > Rprof("sleep-system.out") ; system.time(system(command="sleep 10")) ; Rprof(NULL) user system elapsed 0.000 0.004 10.015 > summaryRprof("sleep-system.out")$by.total

Hello there, I am not quite sure how to interpret the output of Rprof (in the following the output I was staring at). I was poking around the web a little bit for documentation but without much success. I guess if I want to figure out what takes so long in my code the 2nd table $by.total and the total.pct column (pct = percent) is the most helpful. What does it mean that [ or [.data.frame is

Short: get rid of the loops I use and optimize runtime Dear all, I want to calculate for each row the amount of the month ago. I use a matrix with 2100 rows and 22 colums (which is still a very small matrix. nrows of other matrixes can easily be more then 100000) Table before Year month quarter yearmonth Service ... Amount 2009 9 Q3 092009 A ...

Hi, I'm running some routines with standard matrix operations like solve() and diag(). When I do a profile, the lead item under total time is standardGeneric(). Furthermore, solve() and diag() have much greater total time than self time. ??? I assume there is some time-consuming decision going on in the usual functions; is there any way to avoid that and go straight to the calculaions? Thanks

Hello, I am looking for more information about lazy loading introduced in R 2.0.0. Doing ?lazyLoad I got some and there is a 'see also' section that points to 'makeLazyLoading'... But I cannot reach this page. My problem is: I recompiled a library that uses a lot of functions from other libraries (of course I can give details if needed). I load it in my computer: library(svGUI),

Hi, Is nchar function knowingly slow in R? I'm doing some string formatting that requires multiple call to nchar, and nchar seems to be very slow. Experiment 1, pass nchar inside sprintf, and it takes 0.7 seconds > system.time(for (i in 1:10000) + str = sprintf('0005%020d', nchar(op)) + )[3] [1] 0.7 Experiment 2, get the length of op separately using nchar, and then pass

Hi folks, I'm attempting to use the EMD package to analyze some neuroimaging data (timeseries with 64 channels sampled across 1 million time points within each of 20 people). I found that processing a single channel of data using EMD::emd() took about 8 hours. Exploration using Rprof() suggested that most of the compute time was spent in EMD::extrema(). Looking at the code for EMD:extrema(),

Dear R-devel: I could use some advice about matrix calculations and steps that might make for faster computation of generalized inverses. It appears in some projects there is a bottleneck at the use of svd in calculation of generalized inverses. Here's some Rprof output I need to understand. > summaryRprof("Amelia.out") $by.self self.time self.pct

Hi all, I have some long-running code that I'm trying to profile. I am seeing a lot of time spent inside the <Anonymous> function. Of course, this can in fact be any of several functions, but I am unable to see how I could use the information from Rprof.out to discern which function is taking the most time. An example line from my Rprof.out is: rbernoulli <Anonymous>

Hi there are some good tips in "The R Inferno" http://www.burns-stat.com/documents/books/the-r-inferno/ or connect C++ to R with Rcpp http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/code/rcpp.html or byte code compiler (library(compiler)) or library(data.table) but do you have an idea to fasten standard R source code, with the following Rprof output self.time self.pct total.time

Hello everyone, I'm trying to parse a very large XML file using SAX with the XML package (i.e., mainly the xmlEventParsing function). This function takes as an argument a list of other functions (handlers) that will be called to handle particular xml nodes. If when I use Rprof(), all the handler functions are lumped together under the <anonymous> label, and I get something like this:

Dear R-help, A colleague of mine was running some code on two of our boxes, and noticed a rather large difference in running time. We've so far isolated the problem to the difference between R 1.7.1 and 1.8.0, but not more than that. The exact same code took 933.5 seconds in 1.7.1, and 3594.4 seconds in 1.8.1, on the same box. Basically, the code calls boot() to bootstrap fitting mixture

I'm trying to configure Version 2.12.0 or R to do memory profiling. I've reconfigured the code: % ./compile --enable-memory-profiling=YES and verified that it's configured correctly by examining the output. I then rebuild R: % make Then I fire up R and run a script, using Rprof with the memory-profiling switch set to TRUE: Rprof("output", memory.profiling=TRUE); # a

Dear Jim, Here is again exactly what I did and with the output of Rprof (with this reduced dataset and with a simpler function, it is here much faster than in real life). Thanks you again for your help! ## CODE ## mydata1<- structure(list(species = structure(1:8, .Label = c("alsen","gogor", "loalb", "mafas", "pacyn", "patro",

Hi all, I'm using R to find duplicates in a set of 6 files containing Part Number information. Before applying the intersect method to identify the duplicates I need to normalize the P/Ns. Converting the P/N to uppercase if alphanumerical and applying an 18 char long zero padding if numerical. When I apply the pn_formatting function (see code below) to "Part Number" column of the

Hi List, I'm hoping to get opinions for enhancing the efficiency of the following code designed to take a vector of probabilities (outcomes) and calculate a union of the probability space. As part of the union calculation, combn() must be used, which returns a matrix, and the parallelized version of lapply() provided in the multicore package requires a list. I've found that