I am writing R code to create a square matrix. So my approach is:
My question is really simple: what is the best way to pre-allocate this matrix? Thus far, I have two ways:
> x <- matrix(data=NA,nrow=3,ncol=3)
> x
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] NA NA NA
[2,] NA NA NA
[3,] NA NA NA
or
> x <- list()
> length(x) <- 3^2
> dim(x) <- c(3,3)
> x
[,1] [,2] [,3]
[1,] NULL NULL NULL
[2,] NULL NULL NULL
[3,] NULL NULL NULL
As far as I can see, the former is a more concise method than the latter. Also, the former fills the matrix with NAs, whereas the latter is filled with NULLs.
Which is the "better" way to do this? In this case, I'm defining "better" as "better performance", because this is statistical computing and this operation will be taking place with large datasets.
While the former is more concise, it isn't breathtakingly easier to understand, so I feel like this could go either way.
Also, what is the difference between NA and NULL in R? ?NA and ?NULL tell me that "NA" has a length of "1" whereas NULL has a length of "0" - but is there more here? Or a best practice? This will affect which method I use to create my matrix.
NA and “NA” (as presented as string) are not interchangeable. NA stands for Not Available. NaN stands for Not A Number and is a logical vector of a length 1 and applies to numerical values, as well as real and imaginary parts of complex values, but not to values of integer vector. NaN is a reserved word.
In R, one column is created by default for a matrix, therefore, to create a matrix without a column we can use ncol =0.
To convert any R Object to NULL, assign the NULL value to that Object or use the as. null() function and pass the Object to that function, and it will return NULL.
When in doubt, test yourself. The first approach is both easier and faster.
> create.matrix <- function(size) {
+ x <- matrix()
+ length(x) <- size^2
+ dim(x) <- c(size,size)
+ x
+ }
>
> system.time(x <- matrix(data=NA,nrow=10000,ncol=10000))
user system elapsed
4.59 0.23 4.84
> system.time(y <- create.matrix(size=10000))
user system elapsed
0.59 0.97 15.81
> identical(x,y)
[1] TRUE
Regarding the difference between NA and NULL:
There are actually four special constants.
In addition, there are four special constants, NULL, NA, Inf, and NaN.
NULL is used to indicate the empty object. NA is used for absent (“Not Available”) data values. Inf denotes infinity and NaN is not-a-number in the IEEE floating point calculus (results of the operations respectively 1/0 and 0/0, for instance).
You can read more in the R manual on language definition.
According to this article we can do better than preallocating with NA
by preallocating with NA_real_
. From the article:
as soon as you assign a numeric value to any of the cells in 'x', the matrix will first have to be coerced to numeric when a new value is assigned. The originally allocated logical matrix was allocated in vain and just adds an unnecessary memory footprint and extra work for the garbage collector. Instead allocate it using NA_real_ (or NA_integer_ for integers)
As recommended: let's test it.
testfloat = function(mat){
n=nrow(mat)
for(i in 1:n){
mat[i,] = 1.2
}
}
>system.time(testfloat(matrix(data=NA,nrow=1e4,ncol=1e4)))
user system elapsed
3.08 0.24 3.32
> system.time(testfloat(matrix(data=NA_real_,nrow=1e4,ncol=1e4)))
user system elapsed
2.91 0.23 3.14
And for integers:
testint = function(mat){
n=nrow(mat)
for(i in 1:n){
mat[i,] = 3
}
}
> system.time(testint(matrix(data=NA,nrow=1e4,ncol=1e4)))
user system elapsed
2.96 0.29 3.31
> system.time(testint(matrix(data=NA_integer_,nrow=1e4,ncol=1e4)))
user system elapsed
2.92 0.35 3.28
The difference is small in my test cases, but it's there.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With