As shown by the code below, Julia is twice slower than R (!) to sum elements of a Float64 vector with missing values, even with Julia 0.7. In R, missing values are encoded with sentinelle values. In Julia, they are encoded with different type. This difference of design makes it much slower to mani…

See the two last sections of my blog post . We get an incredibly high performance on recent git master for a manual sum over Vector{Int}, a similar performance as R for a manual sum over Vector{Float64}, but a somewhat poorer performance using skipmissing. I’ve filed this issue about it yesterday. A…

With Missings, Julia is slower than R

General Usage

StefanKarpinski June 21, 2018, 3:19am 2

Don’t benchmark in global scope (performance tips)
Use BenchmarkTools for benchmarking
The first run includes compile time

3 Likes

CSV Reading (rewrite in C?)

Topic		Replies	Views
Missing or NaN General Usage	26	12344	August 1, 2018
Why I love Julia Community announcement	34	4824	October 11, 2019
Why are missing values not ignored by default? Internals & Design data , missing-values	330	8404	January 17, 2024
Fastest way to count unique elements in `Vector{Union{Bool, Missing})` Performance	35	6869	January 16, 2018
Micro-benchmark General Usage	7	698	October 5, 2023

With Missings, Julia is slower than R

Related topics