command similar to colSums for rowSums?

Working with an NxMxO sized matrix, currently I can do this in my code:

if (max(colSums(array)) >= number)

But to get an equivalent result using rowSums, I have to do:

for (i in 1:10)
{
if (max(rowSums(array[,,i])) >= number) 
}

I'm running both in a much larger loop that loops millions of times, so
speed and such is quite a big factor for me. Currently, the colSums line
uses about 1/10th as much time as the rowSums' for loop, and the for loop
actually took as much time as the rest of my code combined took to execute.
Is there a faster way than using a for loop and rowSums?

Does this

 max(apply(yourArray, 3, rowSums))

give you what you want?

 -Peter Ehlers

Will Carr wrote:

Working with an NxMxO sized matrix, currently I can do this in my code:

if (max(colSums(array)) >= number)

But to get an equivalent result using rowSums, I have to do:

for (i in 1:10)
{
if (max(rowSums(array[,,i])) >= number) }

I'm running both in a much larger loop that loops millions of times, so
speed and such is quite a big factor for me. Currently, the colSums line
uses about 1/10th as much time as the rowSums' for loop, and the for loop
actually took as much time as the rest of my code combined took to 
execute.
Is there a faster way than using a for loop and rowSums?

Working with an NxMxO sized matrix, currently I can do this in my  
code:

if (max(colSums(array)) >= number)

But to get an equivalent result using rowSums, I have to do:

for (i in 1:10)
{
if (max(rowSums(array[,,i])) >= number)

}

I'm running both in a much larger loop that loops millions of times,  
so
speed and such is quite a big factor for me. Currently, the colSums  
line
uses about 1/10th as much time as the rowSums' for loop, and the for  
loop
actually took as much time as the rest of my code combined took to  
execute.

Is there a faster way than using a for loop and rowSums?

-- 
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/command-similar-to-colSums-for-rowSums-tp931394p931394.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

What are M, N, and O? All the same magnitude?

What are you doing based on that if( ) determination?

Are you sure you are interpreting your profile results correctly?

Is there a faster way than using a for loop and rowSums?

-- 
View this message in context:
http://n4.nabble.com/command-similar-to-colSums-for-rowSums-tp931394p931394.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Does this

  max(apply(yourArray, 3, rowSums))

give you what you want?

  -Peter Ehlers

Will Carr wrote:

Working with an NxMxO sized matrix, currently I can do this in my code:

if (max(colSums(array)) >= number)

But to get an equivalent result using rowSums, I have to do:

for (i in 1:10)
{
if (max(rowSums(array[,,i])) >= number) 
}

I'm running both in a much larger loop that loops millions of times, so
speed and such is quite a big factor for me. Currently, the colSums line
uses about 1/10th as much time as the rowSums' for loop, and the for loop
actually took as much time as the rest of my code combined took to
execute.
Is there a faster way than using a for loop and rowSums?

Or maybe aperm() is faster:

  max(colSums(aperm(yourArray, c(2,1,3))))

  -Peter Ehlers

Peter Ehlers wrote:

Does this

 max(apply(yourArray, 3, rowSums))

give you what you want?

 -Peter Ehlers

Will Carr wrote:

Working with an NxMxO sized matrix, currently I can do this in my code:

if (max(colSums(array)) >= number)

But to get an equivalent result using rowSums, I have to do:

for (i in 1:10)
{
if (max(rowSums(array[,,i])) >= number) }

I'm running both in a much larger loop that loops millions of times, so
speed and such is quite a big factor for me. Currently, the colSums line
uses about 1/10th as much time as the rowSums' for loop, and the for
loop
actually took as much time as the rest of my code combined took to 
execute.
Is there a faster way than using a for loop and rowSums?