-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Burns [mailto:pburns at pburns.seanet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:58 PM
To: Gabor Grothendieck
Cc: Greg Snow; r-help at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Improving data processing efficiency
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
<Greg.Snow at imail.org> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org
[mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Burns
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:04 PM
To: Daniel Folkinshteyn
Cc: r-help at 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
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
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).