From p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk  Sun Jan 23 12:22:11 2000
From: p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk (Peter Dalgaard BSA)
Date: 23 Jan 2000 13:22:11 +0100
Subject: tabulate
In-Reply-To: Bill Venables's message of "Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:26:31 +1000"
References: <200001230026.LAA16510@snowy.nsw.cmis.CSIRO.AU>
Message-ID: <x2ln5hq8p8.fsf@blueberry.kubism.ku.dk>

Bill Venables <William.Venables@cmis.CSIRO.AU> writes:

> table() should be the usual function for everyday use (and using
> this makes the change to tabulate() unnecessary), but on R the
> difference in speed between table() and tabulate() can be
> dramatic.  I would suggest improving the efficiency of table()
> should be a fairly high priority.

Would you happen to have a simple example showing the inefficiency? I
just had a glimpse at the code and it would seem that there are some
extraneous coercions from integer to double precision and back, which
could be fairly easily removed.

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


tabulate
Peter Dalgaard BSA