> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Burns > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:04 PM > To: Daniel Folkinshteyn > Cc: r-help@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.
Pat, 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). Please let it be #4, I would love to be able to tell some clients that I have received a junk of data from them. -- Gregory (Greg) L. Snow Ph.D. Statistical Data Center Intermountain Healthcare [EMAIL PROTECTED] (801) 408-8111 ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
