Pairwise distances in R

May 26, 2013

(This article was first published on f3lix » R, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers)

For a recent project I needed to calculate the pairwise distances of a set of observations to a set of cluster centers. In MATLAB you can use the pdist function for this. As far as I know, there is no equivalent in the R standard packages. So I looked into writing a fast implementation for R. Turns out that vectorizing makes it about 40x faster. Using Rcpp is another 5-6x faster, ending up with a 225x speed-up over the naive implementation.

At the start I wrote a naive (and very slow) implementation that look liked this:

naive_pdist <- function(A,B) {
    # A: matrix with obersvation vectors 
    #         (nrow = number of observations)
    # B: matrix with another set of vectors
    #          (e.g. cluster centers)
    result = matrix(ncol=nrow(B), nrow=nrow(A))
    for (i in 1:nrow(A))
        for (j in 1:nrow(B))
            result[i,j] = sqrt(sum( (A[i,] - B[j,])^2 ))


When I realized that this is too slow, I started looking for an implementation and I found the pdist CRAN package, which is way faster:

Comparing a naive R pdist with pdist::pdist

pdist::pdist is about 12x faster than the naive R implementation

The speed up made me curious about how pdist was implemented in this package. To my disappointment it is the same naive method only written in C (and using float, not double precision) — no vectorization and no tricks involved. So I was pretty sure there was room for improvement.

In search for tricks on computing the pairwise distance a blog post from Alex Smola turned up. He suggest to “use the second binomial formula to decompose the distance into norms of vectors in A and B and an inner product between them”. Translated into R code this solution looks like this:

vectorized_pdist <- function(A,B) 
    an = apply(A, 1, function(rvec) crossprod(rvec,rvec))
    bn = apply(B, 1, function(rvec) crossprod(rvec,rvec))

    m = nrow(A)
    n = nrow(B)

    tmp = matrix(rep(an, n), nrow=m) 
    tmp = tmp +  matrix(rep(bn, m), nrow=m, byrow=TRUE)
    sqrt( tmp - 2 * tcrossprod(A,B) )
Vectorized R pdist is 3x faster than naive C pdist

Vectorized R pdist is 3x faster than naive C pdist

Now that I knew how to implement pdist with a couple of simple operations, I wanted to know how much faster a C (or C++) implementation would be. Thanks to the excellent Rcpp and RcppArmadillo package, it is easy to translate the above R code into C++:

// [[Rcpp::depends(RcppArmadillo)]]

using namespace Rcpp;

// [[Rcpp::export]]
NumericMatrix fastPdist2(NumericMatrix Ar, NumericMatrix Br) {
    int m = Ar.nrow(), 
        n = Br.nrow(),
        k = Ar.ncol();
    arma::mat A = arma::mat(Ar.begin(), m, k, false); 
    arma::mat B = arma::mat(Br.begin(), n, k, false); 

    arma::colvec An =  sum(square(A),1);
    arma::colvec Bn =  sum(square(B),1);

    arma::mat C = -2 * (A * B.t());
    C.each_col() += An;
    C.each_row() += Bn.t();

    return wrap(sqrt(C)); 

This C++ implementation turns out to be another 6x faster than the vectorized R implementation:

RcppArmadillo achieves another 6x speed-up over the R implementaion

RcppArmadillo achieves another 6x speed-up over the R implementaion

All implementations compared

The time measurements for all implementations:

Unit: milliseconds
                   expr         min          lq      median          uq        max  neval
 vectorized_pdist(A, B)   26.667005   30.299216   32.945532   34.548596   134.8368    100
        fastPdist(A, B)    5.357734    5.581193    5.693534    5.798465   109.9736    100
      naive_pdist(A, B) 1259.290444 1280.897937 1290.150653 1320.467180  1425.3864    100
     pdist::pdist(A, B)   98.825835  101.955146  103.719962  105.843313   205.7123    100 

and the speed up among all implementations:

vectorized C++ vectorized R naive C naive R
vectorized C++ 1.00 5.79 18.23 226.74
vectorized R 0.17 1. 00 3.15 39.15
naive C 0.05 0.32 1.00 12.44
naive R 0.00 0.03 0.08 1.00


In my example the (naive) C implementation only acheived a 12x speed up, while the improved R implementation was about 40x faster. These findings agree with what is preached in various blog posts and guides about R: first try to vectorize code, then try to find a faster method (algorithm), and only as last step consider using a faster language.

To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: f3lix » R. offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials on topics such as: Data science, Big Data, R jobs, visualization (ggplot2, Boxplots, maps, animation), programming (RStudio, Sweave, LaTeX, SQL, Eclipse, git, hadoop, Web Scraping) statistics (regression, PCA, time series, trading) and more...

If you got this far, why not subscribe for updates from the site? Choose your flavor: e-mail, twitter, RSS, or facebook...

Comments are closed.


Never miss an update!
Subscribe to R-bloggers to receive
e-mails with the latest R posts.
(You will not see this message again.)

Click here to close (This popup will not appear again)