Message-ID: <AANLkTimWg5w73Hnfq4A5_2bJRNUeShOq5oiQ4zkMdRef@mail.gmail.com>
Date: 2011-01-31T16:23:39Z
From: Jeff Ryan
Subject: XTS with unique time stamps?
In-Reply-To: <19782.57043.358097.779979@max.nulle.part>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 31 January 2011 at 09:37, Jeffrey Ryan wrote:
> | Brian, Worik
> |
> | w.r.t the new functionality in xts.
> |
> | It is so bleeding edge that Brian gave you the wrong name ;-) think
> | "make [the] index unique". ?It probably will also be extended to do
> | the former removal of subsequent non-unique observations/times as
> | well.
> |
> | HTH,
> | Jeff
> |
> |
> | ?make.index.unique
> |
> | make.index.unique ? ? ? ? ? ? package:xts ? ? ? ? ? ? ?R Documentation
> |
> | Force Time Values To Be Unique
> |
> | Description:
> |
> | ? ? ?A generic function to force sorted time vectors to be unique.
> | ? ? ?Useful for high-frequency time-series where original time-stamps
> | ? ? ?may have identical values. For the case of xts objects, the
> | ? ? ?default ?eps? is set to one-hundred microseconds. In practice this
> | ? ? ?advances each subsequent identical time by ?eps? over the previous
> | ? ? ?(possibly also advanced) value.
> |
> | Usage:
> |
> | ? ? ?make.index.unique(x, eps = 1e-05, ...)
> |
> | ? ? ?make.time.unique(x, eps = 1e-05, ...)
>
> Why eps=1e-05? ?I wrote variants of this in-house and use
>
> ? ?incrementTimestamps <- function(times, incr=1.0e-6, ...) {
> ? ? ? ...
> ? ?}
>
Why not. ;-)
On the topic of semantics, why 1.0e-6: 1.0 is redundant, given that a
negative exponent will assure you a mode of "double".
All kidding aside, Brian told me to. And it is user settable of course.
Cuique suum
Jeff
> Dirk
>
> |
> | Arguments:
> |
> | ? ? ? ?x: An xts object, or POSIXct vector.
> |
> | ? ? ?eps: value to add to force uniqueness.
> |
> | ? ? ?...: unused
> |
> | Details:
> |
> | ? ? ?The returned time-series object will have new time-stamps so that
> | ? ? ??isOrdered( .index(x) )? evaluates to TRUE.
> |
> | Value:
> |
> | ? ? ?A modified version of x.
> |
> | Note:
> |
> | ? ? ?Incoming values must be pre-sorted, and no check is done to make
> | ? ? ?sure that this is the case. ?If the index values are of
> | ? ? ?storage.mode ?integer?, they will be coerced to ?double?.
> |
> | Author(s):
> |
> | ? ? ?Jeffrey A. Ryan
> |
> | See Also:
> |
> | ? ? ??align.time?
> |
> | Examples:
> |
> | ? ? ?ds <- options(digits.secs=6) # so we can see the change
> |
> | ? ? ?x <- xts(1:10, as.POSIXct("2011-01-21") + c(1,1,1,2:8)/1e3)
> | ? ? ?x
> | ? ? ?make.index.unique(x)
> |
> | ? ? ?options(ds)
> |
> |
> |
> | On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Brian G. Peterson <brian at braverock.com> wrote:
> | > On Monday, January 31, 2011 12:55:03 am Worik wrote:
> | >> I am having trouble with non-unique time stamps in an xts.
> | >>
> | >> My underlying data has some repeated rows (in a csv file).
> | >>
> | >> How can I easily get rid of the duplicates?
> | >>
> | >> I feel I must be missing something simple. ?If not I can concoct an
> | >> example to illustrate my problem.
> | >
> | > Worik,
> | >
> | > It depends on what you need.
> | >
> | > If you can remove the rows with duplicated indices, then a construction such
> | > as:
> | >
> | > myxts<-myxts[!duplicated(index(myxts))]
> | >
> | > should work.
> | >
> | > If you need all of the observations, and need to artificially make them unique
> | > (as is a common problem with tick data), then you will see discussion in the
> | > list archives here and other places regarding adding artificial indices to high
> | > frequency data while preserving order. You will need the latest xts from R-
> | > Forge and use a construction like this:
> | >
> | > myxts<-make.unique.index(myxts)
> | >
> | > which will (by default) add .00001 sec to each non-unique index after the
> | > first, preserving order, and providing every observation with a unique index.
> | > Note that this presumes that the original order of the observations was
> | > correct in the first place, no provision has been made if you have different
> | > circumstances.
> | >
> | > Thanks to Jeff Ryan for (very) recently adding this second method.
> | >
> | > Regards,
> | >
> | > ?- Brian
> | >
> | > --
> | > Brian G. Peterson
> | > http://braverock.com/brian/
> | > Ph: 773-459-4973
> | > IM: bgpbraverock
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > R-SIG-Finance at r-project.org mailing list
> | > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-finance
> | > -- Subscriber-posting only. If you want to post, subscribe first.
> | > -- Also note that this is not the r-help list where general R questions should go.
> | >
> |
> |
> |
> | --
> | Jeffrey Ryan
> | jeffrey.ryan at lemnica.com
> |
> | www.lemnica.com
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | R-SIG-Finance at r-project.org mailing list
> | https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-finance
> | -- Subscriber-posting only. If you want to post, subscribe first.
> | -- Also note that this is not the r-help list where general R questions should go.
>
> --
> Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-Finance at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-finance
> -- Subscriber-posting only. If you want to post, subscribe first.
> -- Also note that this is not the r-help list where general R questions should go.
--
Jeffrey Ryan
jeffrey.ryan at lemnica.com
www.lemnica.com