Re: [R] Improving effeciency - better table()?

From: Simon Cullen <>
Date: Wed 07 Jul 2004 - 02:11:38 EST

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:02:26 -0400, Liaw, Andy <> wrote:

> Since you didn't provide an example of what z.trun and breaks may look
> like, most people can only guess. Before asking how code can be made
> more
> efficient, it might be more helpful to find out where in the code is
> taking
> time. Try:
> Rprof()
> obs <- table(cut2(z.trun, cuts=breaks))
> Rprof(NULL)
> summaryRprof()

Thanks, Andy. That helped to clear up some of my confusion. I have now eliminated the call to cut2 and table and replaced that with hist, as suggested by Roger Peng.

However I had changed much more code than I had initially realised and it seems that the other code is having a larger effect. I've attached the output of an experiment (a power test with 1000 iterations - code included) and it seems that the problem is getting the expected number of observations in each cell. I have to integrate the density that I am working with in order to do this as it isn't standard.

I know that, firstly, using a for() loop is bad but the problem didn't lend itself to vectorisation (I thought). Any help would be appreciated.


Simon Cullen
Room 3030
Dept. Of Economics
Trinity College Dublin

Ph. (608)3477

______________________________________________ mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide!

Received on Wed Jul 07 02:12:23 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 18 Mar 2005 - 09:45:35 EST