Well, timing to the rescue again. It seems switch
is generally faster than if
statements.
So that, and the fact that the code is shorter/neater with a switch
statement leans in favor of switch
:
# Simplified to only measure the overhead of switch vs if
test1 <- function(type) {
switch(type,
mean = 1,
median = 2,
trimmed = 3)
}
test2 <- function(type) {
if (type == "mean") 1
else if (type == "median") 2
else if (type == "trimmed") 3
}
system.time( for(i in 1:1e6) test1('mean') ) # 0.89 secs
system.time( for(i in 1:1e6) test2('mean') ) # 1.13 secs
system.time( for(i in 1:1e6) test1('trimmed') ) # 0.89 secs
system.time( for(i in 1:1e6) test2('trimmed') ) # 2.28 secs
Update With Joshua's comment in mind, I tried other ways to benchmark. The microbenchmark seems the best. ...and it shows similar timings:
> library(microbenchmark)
> microbenchmark(test1('mean'), test2('mean'), times=1e6)
Unit: nanoseconds
expr min lq median uq max
1 test1("mean") 709 771 864 951 16122411
2 test2("mean") 1007 1073 1147 1223 8012202
> microbenchmark(test1('trimmed'), test2('trimmed'), times=1e6)
Unit: nanoseconds
expr min lq median uq max
1 test1("trimmed") 733 792 843 944 60440833
2 test2("trimmed") 2022 2133 2203 2309 60814430
Final Update Here's showing how versatile switch
is:
switch(type, case1=1, case2=, case3=2.5, 99)
This maps case2
and case3
to 2.5
and the (unnamed) default to 99
. For more information, try ?switch
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…