On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Greg Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -----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). >
5. Chinese sailing vessel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_(ship) ______________________________________________ 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.
