Very new to R and trying to modify a script to help my end users.
Every week a group of files are produced and my modified script, reaches out to the network, makes the necessary changes and puts the files back, all nice and tidy. However, every quarter, there is a second set of files, that needs the EXACT same transformation completed. My thoughts were to check if the files exist on the network with a file.exists statement and then run through script and then continue with the normal weekly one, but my limited experience can only think of writing it this way (lots of stuff is a couple hundred lines)and I'm sure there's something I can do other than double the size of the program:
if file.exists("quarterly.txt"){
do lots of stuff}
else{
do lots of stuff}
Both starja and lemonlin were correct, my solution was to basically turn my program into a function and just create a program that calls the function with each dataset. I also skipped the 'else' portion of my if statement, which works perfectly (for me).
There are numerous Jupyter Kernels available. I'm also aware of some projects for running one language embedded in another e.g. rpy2. However, i'm interested to know if it's possible (or if there are plans) to combine different kernels together in a single notebook?
So say I would have one cell in python code, and another in scala code, the same way that I currently can have a code cell (press y on a cell) as well as a markdown cell m.
Ideally one should be able to pass variables back and forth, but for this question I'd just be looking to be able to have two different 'code cell' types, without them being aware of each other (so I could have for example a python variable assignment x = 1 and a scala val x : Int = 2 and they wouldn't be aware of one another).
Is is possible to manually switch kernels from cell to cell. I've tested going from Python to Julia to R. Works fine. HOWEVER, the namespaces are wiped clean so you would have to maintain state externally if you wanted to switch back and forth.
Wouldn't guarantee sane behavior though. Don't know how you would automate the kernel switch
This is more of a general code structuring question.
At the moment I try to write my code into "namespaces". So for example, I would have:
Mine.FancyPlot.Plot(...)
Mine.FancyPlot.Impl.PlotCanvas(...)
Mine.FancyPlot.Impl.PlotLegend(...)
Mine.BasicPlot.Plot(...)
Mine.BasicPlot.Impl.PlotCanvas(...)
Mine.BasicPlot.Impl.PlotLegend(...)
Mine.BasicPlot.Impl.PlotLines(...)
The idea is that I am trying to hide away "private" functions in a "Impl" for implementation namespace. So outside of Mine_FancyPlot.R I wouldn't call Mine.FancyPlot.Impl functions.
This approach works reasonably well, except code completion isn't as nice as it could be.
To begin with, when I type Mine.BasicPlot. and hit TAB, I get all functions, including the Impl functions, and because I is before P, they even hide the "public" user functions.
So I started changing the structure to
MyPub.FancyPlot.Plot(...)
MyPriv.FancyPlot.PlotCanvas(...)
MyPriv.FancyPlot.PlotLegend(...)
MyPub.BasicPlot.Plot(...)
MyPriv.Mine.BasicPlot.PlotCanvas(...)
MyPriv.Mine.BasicPlot.PlotLegend(...)
MyPriv.Mine.BasicPlot.PlotLines(...)
This works better in that "private" functions are no longer predicted. However, I still have the issue that if I type MyPub. and hit TAB, I can't actually see all different "namespaces" (such as I would in Java, C++, ...), but rather a long list of functions starting all in the first "namespace".
Ideally, I'd like code completion in R to cut off all predictions at the next dot, and unique them, so Ideally when I type MyPub. and hit TAB, I would only get a list of "sub-namespaces" and functions in MyPub.
Is this possible? Can the code prediction be altered to reflect this behaviour? Or is there a better way to achieve what I am aiming for?
You should consider putting your functions in a package to organise them. Functions that are not exported will only be accessible by doing 'package:::functionNotExported' and will not be listed when just doing 'functionNotExpo[tab]'
See for instance debugging a function in R that was not exported by a package
I find myself in the position of having completed a large chunk of analysis and now need to repeat the analysis with slightly different input assumptions.
The analysis, in this case, involves cluster analysis, plotting several graphs, and exporting cluster ids and other variables of interest. The key point is that it is an extensive analysis, and needs to be repeated and compared only twice.
I considered:
Creating a function. This isn't ideal, because then I have to modify my code to know whether I am evaluating in the function or parent environments. This additional effort seems excessive, makes it harder to debug and may introduce side-effects.
Wrap it in a for-loop. Again, not ideal, because then I have to create indexing variables, which can also introduce side-effects.
Creating some pre-amble code, wrapping the analysis in a separate file and source it. This works, but seems very ugly and sub-optimal.
The objective of the analysis is to finish with a set of objects (in a list, or in separate output files) that I can analyse further for differences.
What is a good strategy for dealing with this type of problem?
Making code reusable takes some time, effort and holds a few extra challenges like you mention yourself.
The question whether to invest is probably the key issue in informatics (if not in a lot of other fields): do I write a script to rename 50 files in a similar fashion, or do I go ahead and rename them manually.
The answer, I believe, is highly personal and even then, different case by case. If you are easy on the programming, you may sooner decide to go the reuse route, as the effort for you will be relatively low (and even then, programmers typically like to learn new tricks, so that's a hidden, often counterproductive motivation).
That said, in your particular case: I'd go with the sourcing option: since you plan to reuse the code only 2 times more, a greater effort would probably go wasted (you indicate the analysis to be rather extensive). So what if it's not an elegant solution? Nobody is ever going to see you do it, and everybody will be happy with the swift results.
If it turns out in a year or so that the reuse is higher than expected, you can then still invest. And by that time, you will also have (at least) three cases for which you can compare the results from the rewritten and funky reusable version of your code with your current results.
If/when I do know up front that I'm going to reuse code, I try to keep that in mind while developing it. Either way I hardly ever write code that is not in a function (well, barring the two-liners for SO and other out-of-the-box analyses): I find this makes it easier for me to structure my thoughts.
If at all possible, set parameters that differ between sets/runs/experiments in an external parameter file. Then, you can source the code, call a function, even utilize a package, but the operations are determined by a small set of externally defined parameters.
For instance, JSON works very well for this and the RJSONIO and rjson packages allow you to load the file into a list. Suppose you load it into a list called parametersNN.json. An example is as follows:
{
"Version": "20110701a",
"Initialization":
{
"indices": [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10],
"step_size": 0.05
},
"Stopping":
{
"tolerance": 0.01,
"iterations": 100
}
}
Save that as "parameters01.json" and load as:
library(RJSONIO)
Params <- fromJSON("parameters.json")
and you're off and running. (NB: I like to use unique version #s within my parameters files, just so that I can identify the set later, if I'm looking at the "parameters" list within R.) Just call your script and point to the parameters file, e.g.:
Rscript --vanilla MyScript.R parameters01.json
then, within the program, identify the parameters file from the commandArgs() function.
Later, you can break out code into functions and packages, but this is probably the easiest way to make a vanilla script generalizeable in the short term, and it's a good practice for the long-term, as code should be separated from the specification of run/dataset/experiment-dependent parameters.
Edit: to be more precise, I would even specify input and output directories or files (or naming patterns/prefixes) in the JSON. This makes it very clear how one set of parameters led to one particular output set. Everything in between is just code that runs with a given parametrization, but the code shouldn't really change much, should it?
Update:
Three months, and many thousands of runs, wiser than my previous answer, I'd say that the external storage of parameters in JSON is useful for 1-1000 different runs. When the parameters or configurations number in the thousands and up, it's better to switch to using a database for configuration management. Each configuration may originate in a JSON (or XML), but being able to grapple with different parameter layouts requires a larger scale solution, for which a database like SQLite (via RSQLite) is a fine solution.
I realize this answer is overkill for the original question - how to repeat work only a couple of times, with a few parameter changes, but when scaling up to hundreds or thousands of parameter changes in ongoing research, more extensive tools are necessary. :)
I like to work with combination of a little shell script, a pdf cropping program and Sweave in those cases. That gives you back nice reports and encourages you to source. Typically I work with several files, almost like creating a package (at least I think it feels like that :) . I have a separate file for the data juggling and separate files for different types of analysis, such as descriptiveStats.R, regressions.R for example.
btw here's my little shell script,
#!/bin/sh
R CMD Sweave docSweave.Rnw
for file in `ls pdfs`;
do pdfcrop pdfs/"$file" pdfs/"$file"
done
pdflatex docSweave.tex
open docSweave.pdf
The Sweave file typically sources the R files mentioned above when needed. I am not sure whether that's what you looking for, but that's my strategy so far. I at least I believe creating transparent, reproducible reports is what helps to follow at least A strategy.
Your third option is not so bad. I do this in many cases. You can build a bit more structure by putting the results of your pre-ample code in environments and attach the one you want to use for further analysis.
An example:
setup1 <- local({
x <- rnorm(50, mean=2.0)
y <- rnorm(50, mean=1.0)
environment()
# ...
})
setup2 <- local({
x <- rnorm(50, mean=1.8)
y <- rnorm(50, mean=1.5)
environment()
# ...
})
attach(setup1) and run/source your analysis code
plot(x, y)
t.test(x, y, paired = T, var.equal = T)
...
When finished, detach(setup1) and attach the second one.
Now, at least you can easily switch between setups. Helped me a few times.
I tend to push such results into a global list.
I use Common Lisp but then R isn't so different.
Too late for you here, but I use Sweave a lot, and most probably I'd have used a Sweave file from the beginning (e.g. if I know that the final product needs to be some kind of report).
For repeating parts of the analysis a second and third time, there are then two options:
if the results are rather "independent" (i.e. should produce 3 reports, comparison means the reports are inspected side by side), and the changed input comes in the form of new data files, that goes into its own directory together with a copy of the Sweave file, and I create separate reports (similar to source, but feels more natural for Sweave than for plain source).
if I rather need to do the exactly same thing once or twice again inside one Sweave file I'd consider reusing code chunks. This is similar to the ugly for-loop.
The reason is that then of course the results are together for the comparison, which would then be the last part of the report.
If it is clear from the beginning that there will be some parameter sets and a comparison, I write the code in a way that as soon as I'm fine with each part of the analysis it is wrapped into a function (i.e. I'm acutally writing the function in the editor window, but evaluate the lines directly in the workspace while writing the function).
Given that you are in the described situation, I agree with Nick - nothing wrong with source and everything else means much more effort now that you have it already as script.
I can't make a comment on Iterator's answer so I have to post it here. I really like his answer so I made a short script for creating the parameters and exporting them to external JSON files. And I hope someone finds this useful: https://github.com/kiribatu/Kiribatu-R-Toolkit/blob/master/docs/parameter_configuration.md
I have 12 data.frames to work with. They are similar and I have to do the same processing to each one, so I wrote a function that takes a data.frame, processes it, and then returns a data.frame. This works. But I am afraid that I am passing around a very big structure. I may be making temporary copies (am I?) This can't be efficient. What is the best way to avoid passing a data.frame around?
doSomething <- function(df) {
// do something with the data frame, df
return(df)
}
You are, indeed, passing the object around and using some memory. But I don't think you can do an operation on an object in R without passing the object around. Even if you didn't create a function and did your operations outside of the function, R would behave basically the same.
The best way to see this is to set up an example. If you are in Windows open Windows Task Manager. If you are in Linux open a terminal window and run the top command. I'm going to assume Windows in this example. In R run the following:
col1<-rnorm(1000000,0,1)
col2<-rnorm(1000000,1,2)
myframe<-data.frame(col1,col2)
rm(col1)
rm(col2)
gc()
this creates a couple of vectors called col1 and col2 then combines them into a data frame called myframe. It then drops the vectors and forces garbage collection to run. Watch in your windows task manager at the mem usage for the Rgui.exe task. When I start R it uses about 19 meg of mem. After I run the above commands my machine is using just under 35 meg for R.
Now try this:
myframe<-myframe+1
your memory usage for R should jump to over 144 meg. If you force garbage collection using gc() you will see it drop back to around 35 meg. To try this using a function, you can do the following:
doSomething <- function(df) {
df<-df+1-1
return(df)
}
myframe<-doSomething(myframe)
when you run the code above, memory usage will jump up to 160 meg or so. Running gc() will drop it back to 35 meg.
So what to make of all this? Well, doing an operation outside of a function is not that much more efficient (in terms of memory) than doing it in a function. Garbage collection cleans things up real nice. Should you force gc() to run? Probably not as it will run automatically as needed, I just ran it above to show how it impacts memory usage.
I hope that helps!
I'm no R expert, but most languages use a reference counting scheme for big objects. A copy of the object data will not be made until you modify the copy of the object. If your functions only read the data (i.e. for analysis) then no copy should be made.
I came across this question looking for something else, and it's old - so I'll just provide a brief answer for now (leave a comment if you'd like more explanation).
You can pass around environments in R which contain anywhere from 1 to all of your variables. But probably you don't need to worry about it.
[You might also be able to do something similar with classes. I only currently understand how to use classes for polymorphic functions - and note there's more than 1 class system kicking around.]