From toth.denes at ttk.mta.hu  Mon Mar  2 21:18:15 2015
From: toth.denes at ttk.mta.hu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9nes_T=F3th?=)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:18:15 +0100
Subject: [Rd] R-devel does not update the C++ returned variables
In-Reply-To: <21748.33727.92491.976456@stat.math.ethz.ch>
References: <CAHyAz7TOELUyX2XW=8Abvuz2tU0_ZXVuyx-B84RBk7TQyM-mAA@mail.gmail.com>	<54F45105.40608@gmail.com>	<CAHyAz7QvAyL-KgKp0B6pk=RDHAQs2LHeGS48HvATqZnbuoAfww@mail.gmail.com>	<54F46F15.3030901@gmail.com>	<21748.30477.886575.819346@max.nulle.part>
	<21748.33727.92491.976456@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <54F4C587.5040501@ttk.mta.hu>



On 03/02/2015 04:37 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>
>> On 2 March 2015 at 09:09, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> | I generally recommend that people use Rcpp, which hides a lot of the
>> | details.  It will generate your .Call calls for you, and generate the
>> | C++ code that receives them; you just need to think about the real
>> | problem, not the interface.  It has its own learning curve, but I think
>> | it is easier than using the low-level code that you need to work with .Call.
>
>> Thanks for that vote, and I second that.
>
>> And these days the learning is a lot flatter than it was a decade ago:
>
>> R> Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector doubleThis(NumericVector x) { return(2*x); }")
>> R> doubleThis(c(1,2,3,21,-4))
>> [1]  2  4  6 42 -8
>> R>
>
>> That defined, compiled, loaded and run/illustrated a simple function.
>
>> Dirk
>
> Indeed impressive,  ... and it also works with integer vectors
> something also not 100% trivial when working with compiled code.
>
> When testing that, I've went a step further:
>
> ##---- now "test":
> require(microbenchmark)
> i <- 1:10

Note that the relative speed of the algorithms also depends on the size 
of the input vector. i + i becomes the winner for longer vectors (e.g. i 
<- 1:1e6), but a proper Rcpp version is still approximately twice as fast.

Rcpp::cppFunction("NumericVector doubleThisNum(NumericVector x) { 
return(2*x); }")
Rcpp::cppFunction("IntegerVector doubleThisInt(IntegerVector x) { 
return(2*x); }")
i <- 1:1e6
mb <- microbenchmark::microbenchmark(doubleThisNum(i), doubleThisInt(i), 
i*2, 2*i, i*2L, 2L*i, i+i, times=100)
plot(mb, log="y", notch=TRUE)


> (mb <- microbenchmark(doubleThis(i), i*2, 2*i, i*2L, 2L*i, i+i, times=2^12))
> ## Lynne (i7; FC 20), R Under development ... (2015-03-02 r67924):
> ## Unit: nanoseconds
> ##           expr min  lq      mean median   uq   max neval cld
> ##  doubleThis(i) 762 985 1319.5974   1124 1338 17831  4096   b
> ##          i * 2 124 151  258.4419    164  221 22224  4096  a
> ##          2 * i 127 154  266.4707    169  216 20213  4096  a
> ##         i * 2L 143 164  250.6057    181  234 16863  4096  a
> ##         2L * i 144 177  269.5015    193  237 16119  4096  a
> ##          i + i 152 183  272.6179    199  243 10434  4096  a
>
> plot(mb, log="y", notch=TRUE)
> ## hmm, looks like even the simple arithm. differ slightly ...
> ##
> ## ==> zoom in:
> plot(mb, log="y", notch=TRUE, ylim = c(150,300))
>
> dev.copy(png, file="mbenchm-doubling.png")
> dev.off() # [ <- why do I need this here for png ??? ]
> ##--> see the appended *png graphic
>
> Those who've learnt EDA or otherwise about boxplot notches, will
> know that they provide somewhat informal but robust pairwise tests on
> approximate 5% level.
>  From these, one *could* - possibly wrongly - conclude that
> 'i * 2' is significantly faster than both 'i * 2L' and also
> 'i + i' ---- which I find astonishing, given that  i is integer here...
>
> Probably no reason for deep thoughts here, but if someone is
> enticed, this maybe slightly interesting to read.
>
> Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



[Rd] R-devel does not update the C++ returned variables
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9nes_T=F3th?=