Displaying 12 results from an estimated 12 matches similar to: "cwilcox - new version"
2024 Jan 16
1
cwilcox - new version
I?ve been looking at this for a couple hours--it ended up being trickier than I expected to implement well.
I?ve attached a new patch here. This version scales significantly better than the existing method for both `pwilcox` and `dwilcox`. Examples are included below.
I can?t think of any other ways to improve runtime at this point. That?s not to say there aren?t any, though?I?m hopeful
2023 Nov 06
2
New syntax for positional-only function parameters?
Dear List,
I'm writing to gauge interest in new syntax for positional-only
function parameters to be added to R.
The pattern of functions accepting other functions as inputs and
passing additional ... arguments to them is prevalent throughout
the R ecosystem. Currently, however, all such functions must one
way or another tackle the problem of inadvertently passing arguments
meant to go to
2023 Mar 23
1
`dendrapply` Enhancements
Hello Aidan,
Sorry for dropping this for a while.
? Thu, 2 Mar 2023 21:03:59 +0000
"Lakshman, Aidan H" <AHL27 at pitt.edu> ?????:
> //after
> curnode = eval(lang3(R_Bracket2Symbol, parent->node, DEND_IND), env);
lang3() always constructs a new language object. If you do end up using
eval(), it may make sense to move lang3() out of the loop and reuse the
existing object
2024 Jan 17
2
cwilcox - new version
>
>
> Performance statistics are interesting. If we assume the two populations
> have a total of `m` members, then this implementation runs slightly slower
> for m < 20, and much slower for 50 < m < 100. However, this implementation
> works significantly *faster* for m > 200. The breakpoint is precisely when
> each population has a size of 50; `qwilcox(0.5,50,50)`
2024 Dec 17
1
R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck within GUIs
tl;dr: R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck
within GUIs. This also affects functions in the 'stats'
package, which could be improved by changing the position
of calls to R_CheckUserInterrupt().
Dear all,
Recently I was puzzled because some code in a package under development,
which consisted almost entirely of a .Call() to a function written in
2024 Dec 17
1
R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck within GUIs
A more generic solution would be for R to throttle calls to
R_CheckUserInterrupt(), because it makes no sense to check 1000 times
per second if a user has interrupted, but it is difficult for the
caller to know when R_CheckUserInterrupt() has been last called, or do
it regularly without over-doing it.
Here is a simple patch: https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/125
See also:
2024 Dec 17
1
R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck within GUIs
This seems like a great idea. Would it help to escalate this to a
post on R-bugzilla, so it is less likely to fall through the cracks?
On 12/17/24 09:51, Jeroen Ooms wrote:
> A more generic solution would be for R to throttle calls to
> R_CheckUserInterrupt(), because it makes no sense to check 1000 times
> per second if a user has interrupted, but it is difficult for the
> caller to
2024 Dec 18
2
R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck within GUIs
It seems benign, but has implications since checking time is actually not a cheap operation: adding jus ta time check alone incurs a penalty of ca. 700% compared with the time it takes to call R_CheckUserInterrupt(). Generally, it makes no sense to check interrupts at every iteration - you'll find code like if (++i % 10000 == 0) R_CheckUserInterrupt(); in loops to make sure it's not called
2024 Dec 18
1
R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck within GUIs
On 12/18/24 01:19, Simon Urbanek wrote:
> It seems benign, but has implications since checking time is actually not a cheap operation: adding jus ta time check alone incurs a penalty of ca. 700% compared with the time it takes to call R_CheckUserInterrupt(). Generally, it makes no sense to check interrupts at every iteration - you'll find code like if (++i % 10000 == 0)
2024 Jun 15
1
Hard crash of lme4 in R-devel
? Sat, 15 Jun 2024 02:04:31 +0000
"Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel" <r-devel at r-project.org> ?????:
> other attached packages:
> [1] lme4_1.1-35.1 Matrix_1.7-0
I see you have a new Matrix (1.7-0 from 2024-04-26 with a new ABI) but
an older lme4 (1.1-35.1 from 2023-11-05).
I reproduced the crash and the giant backtrace by first installing
latest lme4 and then
2017 Sep 18
0
Confusing lstat() performance
I did a quick test on one of my lab clusters with no tuning except for quota being enabled:
[root at dell-per730-03 ~]# gluster v info
Volume Name: vmstore
Type: Replicate
Volume ID: 0d2e4c49-334b-47c9-8e72-86a4c040a7bd
Status: Started
Snapshot Count: 0
Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3
Transport-type: tcp
Bricks:
Brick1: 192.168.50.1:/rhgs/brick1/vmstore
Brick2:
2017 Sep 14
5
Confusing lstat() performance
Hi,
I have a gluster 3.10 volume with a dir with ~1 million small files in
them, say mounted at /mnt/dir with FUSE, and I'm observing something weird:
When I list and stat them all using rsync, then the lstat() calls that
rsync does are incredibly fast (23 microseconds per call on average,
definitely faster than a network roundtrip between my 3-machine bricks
connected via Ethernet).
But