I was benchmarking the sample function in R and comparing it with igraph:sample_seq and ran into a strange result.
When I run something like:
library(microbenchmark)
library(igraph)
set.seed(1234)
N <- 55^4
M <- 500
(mbm <- microbenchmark(v1 = {sample(N,M)},
v2 = {igraph::sample_seq(1,N,M)}, times=50))
I get a result like this:
Unit: microseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
v1 21551.475 22655.996 26966.22166 23748.2555 28340.974 47566.237 50
v2 32.873 37.952 82.85238 81.7675 96.141 358.277 50
But when I run, for example,
set.seed(1234)
N <- 100^4
M <- 500
(mbm <- microbenchmark(v1 = {sample(N,M)},
v2 = {igraph::sample_seq(1,N,M)}, times=50))
I get a much faster result for sample:
Unit: microseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
v1 52.165 55.636 64.70412 58.2395 78.636 88.120 50
v2 39.174 43.504 62.09600 53.5715 73.253 176.419 50
It seems that when N is a power of 10 (or some other special number?), sample is much faster than other smaller N that are not powers of 10. Is this expected behavior or am I missing something?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire