|  |  | 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: [merging US industry level data]
Goodness.  I've been attaching -uniqusing- to the end of the merge,  
and that was creating the problem.  Works fine.  I'm stupid.  Thanks  
Michael. -sc
On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Michael Blasnik wrote:
...
It looks like you can just use a straight -merge- (called a many-to- 
one merge, but that doesn't matter) without any reshaping or  
creating some new combined variable.  You certainly do not want to  
append.   If both datasets are sorted, you can just:
merge state year using USING
Stata may issue a warning about lack of unique identification in  
the master dataset, but you can ignore that since you know that is  
what you expect/intend.
Michael Blasnik
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Cunningham"  
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: st: [merging US industry level data]
<snip>>
Not to butt in, but can you elaborate?  I have two datasets   
currently: one on health outcomes where the panel identifier is a   
state variable which varies over time, and another dataset (the   
master dataset) where the panel identifier is a state, race, age,  
and  sex specific cell that varies over time.  The health data is  
from  1980-2000, while the master dataset is from 1970-2000.   
Originally I  was using -joinby- but it was causing the master  
data to drop the  1970-1979 years.  So I was going back to - 
merge-, and had planned to - reshape- the data down to a level  
where the merge could occur between  using and master datasets.   
But are you saying here that -append-  might be better, where a  
dummy variable indicating the using from the  master data?  But  
won't this just extend the length of the master  data?  For  
instance, say the data is:
<snip>
My thought was to reshape vbl1 by sex, age and race, as I was  
saying,  so as to create a single state observation, and then  
merging on that  state using the using data.  But are you saying  
that it's easier to  use append? Wouldn't it just add teh data to  
bottom of the master data?
*
*   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/
*
*   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/