My guess is that number 2 is closest to the mark.
Typing too fast is unfortunately not one of my
habitual attributes.
Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
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.
______________________________________________
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.
