Great news if it holds up generally  -- thanks for the investigation.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:06 PM, David Duffy <David.Duffy@qimr.edu.au>wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Ben Bolker wrote:
>
>  The performance issue you're referring to is I think related to
>> https://github.com/lme4/lme4/issues/150 ... we're hoping to look into
>> this soon; it is definitely important, and we're afraid it's pretty deep.
>>
>
> Using that InstEval example gives me:
>
> Program                  Time      Notes
> Wombat (AI-REML)         14.2 s
>
> lmer4.0                  11.5 s    lme4.0_0.999999-4, Matrix_1.1-0
> lmer4-nm                 25.9 s    lme4_1.0-6, Matrix_1.1-0
>
> lmer4-bobqa              14.8 s    lme4_1.0-6, Matrix_1.1-0
>
> lmer4-optimx-bobqa       25.2 s    lme4_1.0-6, Matrix_1.1-0
> lmer4-optimx-bobqa-kkt=F 15.3 s    lme4_1.0-6, Matrix_1.1-0
>
> lmer4-nlminb             19.8 s    lme4_1.0-6, Matrix_1.1-0
> lmer4-nlminb-kkt=F       10.0 s    lme4_1.0-6, Matrix_1.1-0
>
> lmer4-bfgs               23.4 s    lme4_1.0-6, Matrix_1.1-0
>
> That is, the test for the Kuhn, Karush, Tucker optimality condition
> seems quite expensive for this problem, and the differences between
> optimizers might completely explain the 4.0 v 4 differences.
>
>
> Cheers, David Duffy.
>
> | David Duffy (MBBS PhD)
> | email: David.Duffy@qimrberghofer.edu.au  ph: INT+61+7+3362-0217 fax:
> -0101
> | Genetic Epidemiology, QIMR Berghofer Institute of Medical Research
> | 300 Herston Rd, Brisbane, Queensland 4006, Australia  GPG 4D0B994A
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

