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

  • April 28, 2011

    Statistical factor models and Ledoit-Wolf shrinkage are competing methods for estimating variance matrices of returns.  So which is better?  This adds a data point for answering that question. Previously [...]

  • April 21, 2011

    What is the effect on predicted and realized volatility of substituting risk fraction constraints for weight constraints? Previously This post depends on two previous blog posts: "Unproxying weight constraints" [...]

  • April 18, 2011

    How well do asset weight constraints constrain risk? The setup In "Unproxying weight constraints" I claimed that many constraints on asset weights are really a proxy for constraining risk. [...]