[R] Improving data processing efficiency
pburns at pburns.seanet.com
Fri Jun 6 20:58:05 CEST 2008
My guess is that number 2 is closest to the mark.
Typing too fast is unfortunately not one of my
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Greg Snow <Greg.Snow at imail.org> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org
>>> [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Burns
>>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:04 PM
>>> To: Daniel Folkinshteyn
>>> Cc: r-help at r-project.org
>>> Subject: Re: [R] Improving data processing efficiency
>>> That is going to be situation dependent, but if you have a
>>> reasonable upper bound, then that will be much easier and not
>>> far from optimal.
>>> If you pick the possibly too small route, then increasing the
>>> size in largish junks is much better than adding a row at a time.
>> I am unfamiliar with the use of the word "junk" as a unit of measure for data objects. I figure there are a few different possibilities:
>> 1. You are using the term intentionally meaning that you suggest he increases the size in terms of old cars and broken pianos rather than used up pens and broken pencils.
>> 2. This was a Freudian slip based on your opinion of some datasets you have seen.
>> 3. Somewhere between your mind and the final product "jumps/chunks" became "junks" (possibly a microsoft "correction", or just typing too fast combined with number 2).
>> 4. "junks" is an official measure of data/object size that I need to learn more about (the history of the term possibly being related to 2 and 3 above).
> 5. Chinese sailing vessel.
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
More information about the R-help