R Inferno-ism: order is not rank

July 26, 2012

Do not use order when you want rank.

Background

The update of “A comparison of some heuristic optimization methods” is due to the bug that Luca Scrucca spotted.

Actually, it is two bugs:

    • I used order when I meant rank
    • This somehow escaped being in The R Inferno

 

Problem

What I said in my code was (essentially):

ord <- order(x)

Now what I wanted was the order of the values in x.  What I got was the permutation of indices that would put x into sorted order.  Only under the rarest of circumstances are these the same.  But they sound oh so similar.

What I really wanted to say was:

ord <- rank(x, ties.method="first")

(But see below.)

Timing

Using order in this case doesn’t get us where we want to go.  The advantage is that it gets us there really fast.  The rank function is much slower. (Timings in R version 2.15.0.)

  > x10 <- runif(10)
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) order(x10))
   user  system elapsed 
   0.11    0.00    0.11 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) rank(x10, ties.method="first"))
   user  system elapsed 
   1.22    0.00    1.34 
> x100 <- runif(100)
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) order(x100))
   user  system elapsed 
   0.14    0.00    0.17 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) rank(x100, ties.method="first"))
   user  system elapsed 
   1.61    0.00    1.64 
> x1000 <- runif(1000)
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) order(x1000))
   user  system elapsed 
   1.14    0.02    1.15 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) rank(x1000, ties.method="first"))
   user  system elapsed 
   3.76    0.00    3.82

rank is clearly slower than order. The whole point, though, is that these two commands give us different things.  The command order(order(x)) is another way to get what our rank command gives us.  Even though it is a bit kludgy, it can be significantly faster:

> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) rank(x10, ties.method="first"))
   user  system elapsed 
   1.39    0.00    1.39 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) order(order(x10)))
   user  system elapsed 
   0.23    0.00    0.24 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) rank(x100, ties.method="first"))
   user  system elapsed 
   1.56    0.00    1.56 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) order(order(x100)))
   user  system elapsed 
   0.36    0.00    0.38 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) rank(x1000, ties.method="first"))
   user  system elapsed 
   3.94    0.00    4.00 
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) order(order(x1000)))
   user  system elapsed 
   2.17    0.00    2.17 
> x10000 <- runif(10000)
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) rank(x10000, ties.method="first"))
   user  system elapsed 
  34.88    0.00   35.01
> system.time(for(i in 1:1e4) order(order(x10000)))
   user  system elapsed 
  29.51    0.00   29.94

 

Leave a Reply

  1. […] ← US market portrait 2012 week 30 R Inferno-ism: order is not rank → […]

Related posts

  • January 21, 2013

    An exploration of the usefulness of sectors. Previously This subject was discussed in "S&P 500 sector strengths". Idea Stocks are put into groups based on the sector that the [...]

  • January 7, 2013

    Calibrations of 2013 predictions for 18 equity indices -- plus some publicly available predictions. Orientation The distributions are an attempt to see the variability if there were no market-driving [...]

  • December 24, 2012

    An explanation of quartiles, quintiles deciles, and boxplots. Previously "Again with variability of long-short decile tests" and its predecessor discusses using deciles but doesn't say what they are. The [...]