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 on April 23, and its replacement, is already up and running.

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

Re: st: xt: unit-specific trends

From   Nick Cox <>
Subject   Re: st: xt: unit-specific trends
Date   Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:53:37 +0100

As I understand it:

Work with -if- is really dumb. Stata tests every observation. Even if
you say -if _n < 7- there is no intelligence saying "Oh, we're done
here" once you get to observation 7. How could there be? In that
example and some others working with -in- is a much, much better idea.
However, you're working with -if `touse'- here. One alternative is

keep if `touse'

but you still have to use -if-. It could be that

replace `touse' = -`touse'
sort `touse'
qui count if `touse'
local last = r(N)

and then doing things

...  in 1/`last'


As for other stuff, I think most of the answers would be "It depends".

On what MP does and doesn't do, see

Over time, the Mata content of Stata is going up, but many of the
basic operations are done using compiled C.

I think Stata tech-support would need much more information than this
on your data, your code and your machine before they could make many
useful comments.

More positively, you could use -set rmsg on- to see what is going most slowly.


2012/4/19 László Sándor <>:
> Quick comments on this:
> I forgot to flag that the residual variable need to exist beforehand
> for -genbump- below, this is only replacing values of it.
> More importantly: The operation is still far, far from linear in the
> number of individuals (N in the panel — T is fixed). I could again
> finish a 1% subsample in around 10 minutes or so, but my bold attempt
> at 10% overnight still only finished 4 out of the 8 variables to be
> transformed this way in 10 or 11 hours.
> Maybe caching and memory is an issue here, but if anybody (StataCorp?)
> had a comment on this otherwise, that would be helpful.
> Maybe firing up _regress and _predict all the time is very costly? Or
> the marksample is not fast enough with the by option? (Does the code
> know that once it finished with seven consecutive rows there is
> nothing to check further below "whether" `touse' is 1 anywhere else? I
> guessed byable commands produce efficient subscripting for some
> underlying Mata code…) Or even the byable command does not use MP
> resources efficiently? (Still, even remaining serial, the speed-up
> could be much closer to linear, no?)
> I thought individual-specific trends are almost as trendy nowadays as
> fixed-effects — I wonder if they could be done much faster.

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index