Re: [R] Improving data processing efficiency

From: Gabor Grothendieck <>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:32:47 -0400

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Greg Snow <> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> [] On Behalf Of Patrick Burns
>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:04 PM
>> To: Daniel Folkinshteyn
>> Cc:
>> 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. mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Fri 06 Jun 2008 - 19:45:01 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Fri 06 Jun 2008 - 20:31:40 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive