本文介绍了润滑`period`与`as.numeric`的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！
问题描述
有什么理由让我更喜欢/dseconds()而不是as.numeric吗?似乎后者要快一些.它们都给出相同的结果.
Is there any reason why I should prefer /dseconds() over as.numeric? It seems the latter is a little bit faster. They both give the same results.
> as.numeric(lubridate::ymd_hms("2015-12-31 23:59:59 UTC") - lubridate::ymd_hms("2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"), units = "secs")
[1] 31535999
> interval(lubridate::ymd_hms("2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"), lubridate::ymd_hms("2015-12-31 23:59:59 UTC"))/dseconds(1)
[1] 31535999
和微基准测试:
summary(microbenchmark::microbenchmark(
as.numeric(lubridate::ymd_hms("2016-12-31 23:59:59 UTC") - lubridate::ymd_hms("2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"), units = "secs"),
interval(lubridate::ymd_hms("2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"), lubridate::ymd_hms("2016-12-31 23:59:59 UTC"))/dseconds(1),
times = 100L, unit = "ms"))
给予
min lq mean median uq max neval
as.numeric 3.095075 3.161979 3.320435 3.225082 3.293127 5.634390 100
/dseconds(1) 3.940120 4.067465 4.209389 4.163069 4.259054 6.072688 100
我想还有其他原因interval/dseconds()
推荐答案
结果基本没有太大区别.另请参阅@Stibu的答案中的评论此处.
There is basically no big difference concerning the results. See also the comment in @Stibu's answer here.
这篇关于润滑`period`与`as.numeric`的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！