the answer was indeed in subtle differences, and 'str' did help.
Problem is solved.
Thanks everybody for comments which was all very useful.
Best,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:25 PM, jim holtman wrote:
> What you "see" and what the data really is may be two different
> things. You should have at
On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:17 PM, world peace wrote:
Hi Guys,
working on a "merge" for 2 data frames.
Using the command:
x <- merge(annotatedData, UCSCgenes, by.x="names",
by.y="Ensembl.Gene.ID", all.x=TRUE)
names and Ensembl.Gene.ID are columns with similar elements from the x
and y data frames
Jean
`·.,, ><(((º> `·.,, ><(((º> `·.,, ><(((º>
Jean V. Adams
Statistician
U.S. Geological Survey
Great Lakes Science Center
223 East Steinfest Road
Antigo, WI 54409 USA
From:
world peace
To:
r-help@r-project.org
Date:
08/01/2011 11:24 AM
Subject:
[R] possible reason
What you "see" and what the data really is may be two different
things. You should have at least enclosed an 'str' of the two data
frames; even better would be a subset of the data using 'dput'. Most
likely your problem is that your data is not what you 'expect' it to
be.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at
Hi Guys,
working on a "merge" for 2 data frames.
Using the command:
x <- merge(annotatedData, UCSCgenes, by.x="names",
by.y="Ensembl.Gene.ID", all.x=TRUE)
names and Ensembl.Gene.ID are columns with similar elements from the x
and y data frames.
annotatedData has 8909 entries, so has x(as expec
5 matches
Mail list logo