Re: [Rd] the incredible lightness of crossprod

From: Paul Gilbert <pgilbert_at_bank-banque-canada.ca>
Date: Fri 28 Jan 2005 - 06:53:17 EST

A few weeks ago I noticed

 > z <- matrix(rnorm(20000),10000,2)

 > system.time(for (i in 1:1000) apply(z,2,sum)) [1] 13.44 0.48 14.08 0.00 0.00

 > system.time(for (i in 1:1000) rep(1,10000) %*% z) [1] 6.46 0.11 6.84 0.00 0.00

which seemed completely contrary to all my childhood teachings. Now

 > system.time(for (i in 1:1000) crossprod(rep(1,10000), z)) [1] 1.90 0.12 2.24 0.00 0.00

makes sense because it is suppose to be faster than %*% , but why is apply so slow?
(And should I go back and change apply in my code everywhere or is this likely to reverse again?)

Paul Gilbert  

Patrick Burns wrote:

> The following is at least as much out of intellectual curiosity
> as for practical reasons.
> On reviewing some code written by novices to R, I came
> across:
>
> crossprod(x, y)[1,1]
>
> I thought, "That isn't a very S way of saying that, I wonder
> what the penalty is for using 'crossprod'." To my surprise the
> penalty was substantially negative. Handily the client had S-PLUS
> as well -- there the sign of the penalty was as I had expected, but
> the order of magnitude was off.
>
> Here are the timings of 1 million computations on vectors of
> length 1000. This is under Windows, R version 1.9.1 and S-PLUS
> 6.2 (on the same machine).
>
> Command R S-PLUS
> sum(x * y) 28.61 97.6
> crossprod(x, y)[1,1] 6.77 2256.2
>
>
> Another example is when computing the sums of the columns of a
> matrix. For example:
>
> set.seed(1)
> jjm <- matrix(rnorm(600), 5)
>
> Timings for this under Windows 2000 with R version 2.0.1 (on an
> old chip running at about 0.7Ghz) for 100,000 computations are:
>
> apply(jjm, 2, sum) 536.59
> colSums(jjm) 18.26
> rep(1,5) %*% jjm 15.41
> crossprod(rep(1,5), jjm) 13.16
>
> (These timings seem to be stable across R versions and on at least
> one Linux platform.)
>
> Andy Liaw showed another example of 'crossprod' being fast a couple
> days ago on R-help.
>
> Questions for those with a more global picture of the code:
>
> * Is the speed advantage of 'crossprod' inherent, or is it because
> more care has been taken with its implementation than the other
> functions?
>
> * Is 'crossprod' faster than 'sum(x * y)' because 'crossprod' is
> going to BLAS while 'sum' can't?
>
> * Would it make sense to (essentially) use 'crossprod' in
> 'colSums' and its friends at least for the special case of matrices?
>
> Patrick Burns
>
> Burns Statistics
> patrick@burns-stat.com
> +44 (0)20 8525 0696
> http://www.burns-stat.com
> (home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User")
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Fri Jan 28 06:08:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 18 Mar 2005 - 09:02:42 EST