Message-ID: <475a3c8f0904211100wc43fd04xc6ede311a60818a8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: 2009-04-21T18:00:45Z
From: David Smith
Subject: My surprising experience in trying out REvolution's R
In-Reply-To: <001d01c9c2a7$1efffe30$3a0b2c0a@gne.windows.gene.com>
That's our guess too. We're running some tests now on the code to see
what's going on, and it's entirely possible the performance gains are
a function of the problem size, so we're testing that too. Changes in
R between 2.7.2 (upon which REvolution R is currently based) and 2.9.0
are also a confounding factor. (I'm assuming the timings reported
were on 2.9, not 1.9 as stated.) I'll report back here when I have
more details.
# David Smith
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Bert Gunter <gunter.berton at gene.com> wrote:
> A guess: Depends on the problem, the hardware, the matrix libraries,...
>
> e.g. in relatively small problems, Revolution's overhead may consume more
> time and resources than the problem warrants. In others, you may see many
> fold improvements. Very dangerous to generalize from an example or two (as I
> recently experienced to my own chagrin).
--
David M Smith <david at revolution-computing.com>
Director of Community, REvolution Computing www.revolution-computing.com
Tel: +1 (206) 577-4778 x3203 (San Francisco, USA)
Check out our upcoming events schedule at www.revolution-computing.com/events