Message-ID: <50C2438C.9030203@uottawa.ca>
Date: 2012-12-07T19:29:16Z
From: John C Nash
Subject: Vectorizing integrate()
In-Reply-To: <83F6A3A9-B420-4DB0-B14D-54C5D13FD1A2@xs4all.nl>
I found mixed (and not always easy to predict) results from the
byte-code compiler. It seems necessary to test whether it helps. On some
calculations, it is definitely worthwhile.
JN
On 12-12-07 01:57 PM, Berend Hasselman wrote:
>
> On 07-12-2012, at 19:37, Spencer Graves wrote:
>
>> On 12/7/2012 9:40 AM, Berend Hasselman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> benchmark(eta1 <- f1(X, B, x, sem1), eta2 <- f2(X, B, x, sem1), eta3 <- f3(X, B, x, sem1),
>>> + eta4 <- f4(X, B, x, sem1), eta5 <- f5(X, B, x, sem1), eta6 <- f6(X, B, x, sem1),
>>> + replications=10, columns=c("test","elapsed","relative"))
>>> test elapsed relative
>>> 1 eta1 <- f1(X, B, x, sem1) 1.873 1.207
>>> 2 eta2 <- f2(X, B, x, sem1) 1.552 1.000
>>> 3 eta3 <- f3(X, B, x, sem1) 1.807 1.164
>>> 4 eta4 <- f4(X, B, x, sem1) 1.841 1.186
>>> 5 eta5 <- f5(X, B, x, sem1) 1.852 1.193
>>> 6 eta6 <- f6(X, B, x, sem1) 1.601 1.032
>>>
>>> As you can see using the compiler package is beneficial speedwise.
>>> f2 and f6, both the the result of using the compiler package, are the quickest.
>>> It's quite likely that more can be eked out of this.
>>
>>
>> So the compiler (f2, f4, f6) provided a slight improvement over f1 and f3 but not f2, and in any event, the improvement was not great.
>
> I don't understand the "but not f2".
> And I don't understand the conclusion for (f2,f4,f6). f4 is a compiled version of f3 and is slower than its non compiled version.
> f2 and f6 are the quickest compiled versions.
> Indeed the improvement is not earth shattering but it does demonstrate what you can achieve by using the compiler package.
>
> Berend
>