\subsection{Timing results (Han Wu)}

When I tried my three runs, there were a few runs that costed tremendous amount of time. Thus I only plotted the minimum amount of time of all the three runs. It would at least give us an estimate of the minimum time that it would require for Rhipe/Hadoop to finish the job. For each run of the null fit and glm fit, data was generated thus the the second run would not be able to get cached data. \\

When I increased the number of rows of the dataset to $2^{25}$, there is significant pattern that the nullfit takes less time than the glmfit. However there are still a few outliers in timing. Given this fact, I plot timing of each run vesus the number of subset, and also added the minimum of time of all the three runs in each settting.\\   


\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height = 6.5in, width= 5in, angle = -90]{wu79.timing.plot.ps}
  \caption{Minimum timing under different settings(wu79)}
  \label{fig:wu79}
\end{figure}


\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height = 6.5in, width= 5in, angle = -90]{wu79.timing.plot.large.ps}
  \caption{Scatterplot and minimum timing plot under different settings(wu79)}
  \label{fig:wu79.large}
\end{figure}


\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height = 6.5in, width= 5in, angle = -90]{wu79.timing.plot.third.ps}
  \caption{Scatterplot of timing versus m (wu79)}
  \label{fig:wu79.third}
\end{figure}


