[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C

**From**: |
Tamas Nepusz |

**Subject**: |
Re: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C |

**Date**: |
Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:33:48 +0100 |

**User-agent**: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 |

Dear William,
>* I did an experiment as follow:*
>* 1. Create a full graph*
>* 2. For each edges, attach two attributes*
>* 3. For all edges, randomly pick an edge and read/write its value*
>
>* In R:*
>* 100 nodes, 4950 edges: 4 sec*
Can you send us your actual code please? I'm pretty sure that you are
not making use of R's vectorization support and that's why you are
measuring such large run times. Looping (e.g., using a for loop) is very
slow in R, but in most cases it can be avoided.
--
T.

**[igraph] Speed comparison of R and C**, *William Tu*, `2011/02/07`
**Re: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C**, *William Tu*, `2011/02/08`
**Re: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C**, *William Tu*, `2011/02/08`
**Re: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C**, *Tamás Nepusz*, `2011/02/08`
**Re: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C**, *Gábor Csárdi*, `2011/02/08`
**RE: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C**, *jeremy.raw*, `2011/02/09`
**[igraph] Bipartitle community detection**, *Liang Wang*, `2011/02/09`
**Re: [igraph] Bipartitle community detection**, *Tamás Nepusz*, `2011/02/10`

**RE: [igraph] Speed comparison of R and C**, *cheng-chun Tu*, `2011/02/11`