# Performance Benchmark of Running Sum Functions

**Rcpp Gallery**, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)

Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

First, let us consider a running sum function in pure R. To get started, I looked at the source code of the TTR package to see the algorithm used in `runSum`

. The `runSum`

function uses a Fortran routine to compute the running/rolling sum of a vector. The `run_sum_R`

function below is my interpretation of that algorithm implemented in R. Many thanks to the package author, Joshua Ulrich, for pointing out to me that, in many cases, the algorithm is more critical to performance than the language.

run_sum_R <- function(x, n) { sz <- length(x) ov <- vector(mode = "numeric", length = sz) # sum the values from the beginning of the vector to n ov[n] <- sum(x[1:n]) # loop through the rest of the vector for(i in (n+1):sz) { ov[i] <- ov[i-1] + x[i] - x[i-n] } # pad the first n-1 values with NA ov[1:(n-1)] <- NA return(ov) } suppressMessages(library(TTR)) library(rbenchmark) set.seed(123) x <- rnorm(10000) # benchmark run_sum_R for given values of x and n benchmark( run_sum_R(x, 50), run_sum_R(x, 100), run_sum_R(x, 150), run_sum_R(x, 200), order = NULL)[,1:4] test replications elapsed relative 1 run_sum_R(x, 50) 100 3.364 1.007 2 run_sum_R(x, 100) 100 3.339 1.000 3 run_sum_R(x, 150) 100 3.390 1.015 4 run_sum_R(x, 200) 100 3.590 1.075

For these benchmarks, I will just focus on the performance of the functions for a fixed `x`

and varying the value of `n`

. The results of the benchmark of `run_sum_R`

show that the elapsed time is fairly constant for the given values of `n`

(i.e. O(1)).

Now let us consider a running sum function in C++, call it `run_sum_v1`

. One approach is to loop through each element of the given vector calling std::accumulate to compute the running sum.

#include <Rcpp.h> using namespace Rcpp; // [[Rcpp::export]] NumericVector run_sum_v1(NumericVector x, int n) { int sz = x.size(); NumericVector res(sz); // loop through the vector calling std::accumulate for(int i = 0; i < (sz-n+1); i++){ res[i+n-1] = std::accumulate(x.begin()+i, x.end()-sz+n+i, 0.0); } // pad the first n-1 elements with NA std::fill(res.begin(), res.end()-sz+n-1, NA_REAL); return res; } # benchmark run_sum_v1 for given values of x and n benchmark( run_sum_v1(x, 50), run_sum_v1(x, 100), run_sum_v1(x, 150), run_sum_v1(x, 200), order = NULL)[,1:4] test replications elapsed relative 1 run_sum_v1(x, 50) 100 0.045 1.000 2 run_sum_v1(x, 100) 100 0.088 1.956 3 run_sum_v1(x, 150) 100 0.128 2.844 4 run_sum_v1(x, 200) 100 0.170 3.778

Although the elapsed times of `run_sum_v1`

are quite fast, note that the time increases approximately linearly as `n`

increases (i.e. O(N)). This will become a problem if we use this function with large values of `n`

.

Now let us write another running sum function in C++ that uses the same algorithm that is used in `run_sum_R`

, call it `run_sum_v2`

.

// [[Rcpp::export]] NumericVector run_sum_v2(NumericVector x, int n) { int sz = x.size(); NumericVector res(sz); // sum the values from the beginning of the vector to n res[n-1] = std::accumulate(x.begin(), x.end()-sz+n, 0.0); // loop through the rest of the vector for(int i = n; i < sz; i++) { res[i] = res[i-1] + x[i] - x[i-n]; } // pad the first n-1 elements with NA std::fill(res.begin(), res.end()-sz+n-1, NA_REAL); return res; } # benchmark run_sum_v2 for given values of x and n benchmark( run_sum_v2(x, 50), run_sum_v2(x, 100), run_sum_v2(x, 150), run_sum_v2(x, 200), order = NULL)[,1:4] test replications elapsed relative 1 run_sum_v2(x, 50) 100 0.007 1 2 run_sum_v2(x, 100) 100 0.007 1 3 run_sum_v2(x, 150) 100 0.007 1 4 run_sum_v2(x, 200) 100 0.007 1

The benchmark results of `run_sum_v2`

are quite fast and much more favorable than both `run_sum_R`

and `run_sum_v1`

. The elapsed time is approximately constant across the given values of `n`

(i.e O(N)).

Finally, let us benchmark all three functions as well as `runSum`

from the TTR package for a point of reference using larger values for the size of `x`

and `n`

.

set.seed(42) y <- rnorm(100000) # benchmark runSum for given values of x and n benchmark( runSum(y, 4500), run_sum_v1(y, 4500), run_sum_v2(y, 4500), run_sum_R(y, 4500), order = "relative")[,1:4] test replications elapsed relative 3 run_sum_v2(y, 4500) 100 0.082 1.00 1 runSum(y, 4500) 100 0.889 10.84 4 run_sum_R(y, 4500) 100 33.717 411.18 2 run_sum_v1(y, 4500) 100 37.538 457.78

An interesting result of benchmarking with these larger values is that `run_sum_R`

is faster than `run_sum_v1`

for the given values. This example demonstrates that it is not always the case that C++ code is faster than R code. The inefficiency of `run_sum_v1`

is due to having `std::accumulate`

inside the for loop. For a vector of size 100,000 and `n = 5000`

, `std::accumulate`

is called 95,001 times!

This is obviously not an “apples-to-apples” comparison because a different algorithm is used, but the point of the example is to demonstrate the importance of the algorithm regardless of the programming language.

It should be noted that `runSum`

does some extra work in R such as checking for a valid `n`

, non-leading NAs, etc. and should be considered when comparing the benchmark results of `run_sum_v2`

to `runSum`

.

**leave a comment**for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog:

**Rcpp Gallery**.

R-bloggers.com offers

**daily e-mail updates**about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.

Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.