Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: RE: Re: RE: Is Stata inefficient for Matching?


From   Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   "'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: Re: RE: Is Stata inefficient for Matching?
Date   Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:24:39 +0100

Kit is quite correct. I did glance at the code, but I must have been looking at the previous version. Sorry. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Christopher Baum

On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:33 AM, Nick Cox wrote:

> 
> Just guessing broadly, but
> 
> 1. Get a faster computer.
> 
> 2. Rewrite the internals of -psmatch2- in Mata.
> 
> are my (non-facetious but possibly not practical) suggestions.

As -ssc type psmatch2.ado- will show, Leuven and Sianesi have already done #2!  For a while the package was distributed with a C-language plugin, but the hassles of maintaining that (and providing it in several flavors) led to the routine being Mata-ized. Now whether it could be more efficiently Mata-ized I don't know; I imagine that if Bill Gould got his hands on the code it could be.


*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index