On 10/10/2007 2:03 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Jim Holtman wrote:
>>
>> One of the things that you should do is to use Rprof
>> to see where time is being spent.
>>
> Rprof is great! I didn't know such functionality existed.
>
> But I am a very destructive user; I think I found a way
> to break
There are a couple of outputs from Rprof. One shows time spent in the
function (and everything that it calls) and the other in the function
itself.
What I do is to post process the output from Rprof into a format that
is easier to understand. In this case, the Rprof run took 12.2
seconds of whic
Jim Holtman wrote:
>
> One of the things that you should do is to use Rprof
> to see where time is being spent.
>
Rprof is great! I didn't know such functionality existed.
But I am a very destructive user; I think I found a way
to break Rprof: if I do
f <- my.slow.function
then call
f(...)
One of the things that you should do is to use Rprof to see where time
is being spent. I would guess that is the not the 'for' loop, but
instead what is being done inside it. My guess it that most of the
time is being spent in the number of times that 'lp' is being called.
So the real problem mig
Dear UseRs,
I wrote following function in order to solve Data Envelopment Analysis.
Reason for posting is that the function is slow when nrow(dat) is large.
I wonder if other functions could substitute the for() loop in the
code, such as mapply().
Can anybody help to rewrite the dea() function
5 matches
Mail list logo
