Open
Conversation
Suggesting an improvement by adding parallelization for scaling using furrr::future_map function. On my end, resulting scaled df is identical with or without using parallel mode.
Also, using dispersion default value of 0.000001 instead of 0 to avoid NaN for entries not divisible by zero.
```
dispersion <-
stratum %>%
dplyr::summarise_at(.funs = dispersion, .vars = variables) %>%
dplyr::mutate(across(everything(), ~ if_else(. == 0, 0.000001, .))) %>%
dplyr::collect()
```
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Suggesting an improvement by adding parallelization for scaling using furrr::future_map function. On my end, resulting scaled df is identical with or without using parallel mode.
Also, using dispersion default value of 0.000001 instead of 0 to avoid NaN for entries not divisible by zero.
Minor: Though I used
data %>% dplyr::select(! any_of(variables))instead ofdata %>% dplyr::select(-variables)for one of select statements, I think it should bedata %>% dplyr::select(- all_of(variables)),to have a stricter implementation of select statement. Use of all_of will stop the code from running if not allvariablesare being excluded using a select query versus any_of will let it pass without any warning or error.