[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Chris Ruebeck <ruebeckc@lafayette.edu> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: -collapse- versus homebrew |

Date |
Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:24:04 -0500 |

I'll accept the guess. But note that my example was only twice as fast, so there would still seem to be some point where the more efficient coding of -collapse- wins.

Chris

On Feb 21, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Nick Cox wrote:

I'll make a guess. -collapse- can never be faster than customised code that focuses

on exactly what you want to do, as typically you are replacing a few hundred lines of

Stata with a few.

Chris Ruebeck wrote

When we generate bootstrapped standard errors and perform Monte Carlo analyses, it's useful to make the code as speedy as possible. So I thought about -collapse- for a moment and performed the following speed test listed below. The timing results follow it, showing that my homebrewed version was twice as fast as -collapse-.

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: RE: -collapse- versus homebrew***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: Displaying values less than one with a zero in front of the comma** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: RE: -collapse- versus homebrew** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: -collapse- versus homebrew** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: RE: -collapse- versus homebrew** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |