I recently learned about the microbenchmark package while browsing through Hadley’s advanced R programming book. I’ve done some quick benchmarking using

`system.time()`

in a for loop and taking the average, but the `microbenchmark`

function in the microbenchmark package makes this much easier. Hadley gives the example of taking the square root of a vector using the built-in `sqrt`

function versus the mathematical equivalent of raising the vector to the power of 0.5.```
library(microbenchmark)
x = runif(100)
microbenchmark(
sqrt(x),
x ^ 0.5
)
```

By default,

`microbenchmark`

runs each argument 100 times to get an average look at how long each evaluation takes. Results:```
Unit: nanoseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
sqrt(x) 825 860.5 1212.79 892.5 938.5 12905 100
x^0.5 3015 3059.5 3776.81 3101.5 3208.0 15215 100
```

On average

`sqrt(x)`

takes 1212 nanoseconds, compared to 3776 for `x^0.5`

. That is, the built-in `sqrt`

function is about 3 times faster. (This was surprising to me. Anyone care to comment on why this is the case?)
Now, let’s try it on something just a little bigger. This is similar to a real-life application I faced where I wanted to compute summary statistics of some value grouping by levels of some other factor. In the example below we’ll use the nycflights13 package, which is a data package that has info on 336,776 outbound flights from NYC in 2013. I’m going to go ahead and load the dplyr package so things print nicely.

```
library(dplyr)
library(nycflights13)
flights
```

```
Source: local data frame [336,776 x 16]
year month day dep_time dep_delay arr_time arr_delay carrier tailnum
1 2013 1 1 517 2 830 11 UA N14228
2 2013 1 1 533 4 850 20 UA N24211
3 2013 1 1 542 2 923 33 AA N619AA
4 2013 1 1 544 -1 1004 -18 B6 N804JB
5 2013 1 1 554 -6 812 -25 DL N668DN
6 2013 1 1 554 -4 740 12 UA N39463
7 2013 1 1 555 -5 913 19 B6 N516JB
8 2013 1 1 557 -3 709 -14 EV N829AS
9 2013 1 1 557 -3 838 -8 B6 N593JB
10 2013 1 1 558 -2 753 8 AA N3ALAA
.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Variables not shown: flight (int), origin (chr), dest (chr), air_time
(dbl), distance (dbl), hour (dbl), minute (dbl)
```

Let’s say we want to know the average arrival delay (

`arr_delay`

) broken down by each airline (`carrier`

). There’s more than one way to do this.
Years ago I would have used the built-in

`aggregate`

function.```
aggregate(flights$arr_delay, by=list(flights$carrier), mean, na.rm=TRUE)
```

This gives me the results I’m looking for:

```
Group.1 x
1 9E 7.3796692
2 AA 0.3642909
3 AS -9.9308886
4 B6 9.4579733
5 DL 1.6443409
6 EV 15.7964311
7 F9 21.9207048
8 FL 20.1159055
9 HA -6.9152047
10 MQ 10.7747334
11 OO 11.9310345
12 UA 3.5580111
13 US 2.1295951
14 VX 1.7644644
15 WN 9.6491199
16 YV 15.5569853
```

Alternatively, you can use the sqldf package, which feels natural if you’re used to writing SQL queries.

```
library(sqldf)
sqldf("SELECT carrier, avg(arr_delay) FROM flights GROUP BY carrier")
```

Not long ago I learned about the data.table package, which is good at doing these kinds of operations extremely fast.

```
library(data.table)
flightsDT = data.table(flights)
flightsDT[ , mean(arr_delay, na.rm=TRUE), carrier]
```

Finally, there’s my new favorite, the dplyr package, which I covered recently.

```
library(dplyr)
flights %>% group_by(carrier) %>% summarize(mean(arr_delay, na.rm=TRUE))
```

Each of these will give you the same result, but which one is faster? That’s where the microbenchmark package becomes handy. Here, I’m passing all four evaluations to the

`microbenchmark`

function, and I’m naming those “base”, “sqldf”, “datatable”, and “dplyr” so the output is easier to read.```
library(microbenchmark)
mbm = microbenchmark(
base = aggregate(flights$arr_delay, by=list(flights$carrier), mean, na.rm=TRUE),
sqldf = sqldf("SELECT carrier, avg(arr_delay) FROM flights GROUP BY carrier"),
datatable = flightsDT[ , mean(arr_delay, na.rm=TRUE), carrier],
dplyr = flights %>% group_by(carrier) %>% summarize(mean(arr_delay, na.rm=TRUE)),
times=50
)
mbm
```

Here’s the output:

```
Unit: milliseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
base 1487.39 1521.12 1544.73 1539.96 1554.55 1676.25 50
sqldf 867.14 880.34 892.24 887.88 897.28 982.91 50
datatable 4.12 4.57 5.29 4.89 5.43 18.69 50
dplyr 14.49 15.53 16.59 15.86 16.58 25.04 50
```

In this example, data.table was clearly the fastest on average. dplyr took ~3 times longer, sqldf took ~180x longer, and the base

`aggregate`

function took over 300 times longer. Let’s visualize those results using ggplot2 (microbenchmark has an autoplot method available, and note the log scale):```
library(ggplot2)
autoplot(mbm)
```

In this example data.table and dplyr were both relatively fast, with data.table being just a few milliseconds faster. Sometimes this will matter, other times it won’t. This is a matter of personal preference, but I personally find the data.table incantation not the least bit intuitive compared to dplyr. The way we pronounce

`flights %>% group_by(carrier) %>% summarize(mean(arr_delay, na.rm=TRUE))`

is: “take flights *then*group that data by the carrier variable*then*summarize the data taking the mean of arr_delay.” The dplyr syntax, for me, is much easier to use and extend to much more complex data management and analysis tasks, so I’ll sacrifice those few milliseconds or*program run time*for the minutes or hours of*programmer debugging time*. But if you’re planning on running a piece of code on, for instance, millions or more simulations, then those few milliseconds might be important to you. The microbenchmark package makes benchmarking easy for small pieces of code like this.
The code used for this analysis is consolidated here on GitHub

Thanks for the post. If you put the data.table command into the microbenchmark evaluation you will find that dplyr is faster then data.table, at least if you are interested in the time it takes to get what you want, starting out from the same intial data frame. When I tried:

ReplyDeletembm <- microbenchmark(

dt<-data.table(flights),

dt[ , mean(arr_delay, na.rm=TRUE), carrier],

times=50

)

I got around 144 ms in total.

Great observation @hanshalbe. Yes, I did give data.table an unfair advantage by pre-converting flights into a data.table outside the benchmarking framework. When you already have a data.table, the mean-by-group comparison is faster, but if you have to create the data.table each time, perhaps it isn't.

Delete