Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

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

From |
Robert Picard <picard@netbox.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat |

Date |
Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:39:05 -0400 |

Do you guys see a difference if you try under a different memory allocation? I'm running Stata/MP 11 (4 cores) on a Mac Pro 2.93GHz Quad-Core with 12GB of RAM and get: with 1g allocation: t=17.49; t=64.09; t=71.18 with 10m allocation: t=10.93; t=43.35; t=47.68 Just curious, Robert On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net> wrote: > This is 64bit MP 2 on Windows 7 with 8G ram. > The processor is an AMD Phenom II with 3.20GHz clock speed. > > cheers, > J > > > Martin Weiss wrote: >> >> <> >> >> Jeph, out of curiosity, what kind of equipment is it that throws up these >> numbers? Mine is 64 bit MP 4 on Windows 7 with 4G Ram. >> >> >> HTH >> Martin >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu >> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Jeph Herrin >> Sent: Dienstag, 27. April 2010 20:27 >> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu >> Subject: Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat >> >> t=48.90; t=60.45; t=72.30. :> >> >> >> Martin Weiss wrote: >>> >>> <> >>> >>> t=100.28; t=207.58; t=241.55. :-) >>> >>> >>> HTH >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu >>> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Nick Cox >>> Sent: Dienstag, 27. April 2010 19:08 >>> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu >>> Subject: RE: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat >>> >>> Good question. I decided to do some timings to support -- or rebut -- my >>> feeling that -count- which just counts should be faster than -summarize, >>> meanonly- which does other stuff too and in turn than -summarize- which >> >> does >>> >>> other stuff too. But although that's the order the timings are closer >>> than >> >> I >>> >>> guessed. Still, doing anything the quickest way does no harm and may give >>> valuable speed-up for large problems. >>> Here is one test script. Compare your experiences: >>> clear >>> set obs 100000 >>> set seed 2803 >>> gen y = runiform() >>> set rmsg on >>> >>> qui forval i = 1/10000 { >>> count if y > 0.5 >>> } >>> >>> qui forval i = 1/10000 { >>> su y if y > 0.5, meanonly >>> } >>> >>> qui forval i = 1/10000 { >>> su y if y > 0.5 >>> } >>> >>> My timings were t=187.49; 254.49; 313.38, which no doubt shows up the >>> Mesolithic age of my machine. >>> Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk >>> Martin Weiss >>> >>> " As a small detail of efficiency, I would always recommend -count- >>> rather >>> than -summarize- for the purpose here." >>> >>> My earlier code did use -count-... What makes this thing more efficient, >>> though? Both are built-in, so they probably enjoy a big advantage over >>> everybody else anyway. So I guess the reason for your preference is the >> >> fact >>> >>> that -count- calculates fewer results than -su, mean-? >>> >>> Nick Cox >>> >>> A secondary theme here is that this kind of code gets very difficult to >>> read, which makes it difficult to maintain and debug. >>> I note that the condition >>> intab1 == 1 & admit_ic == 1 & btwg < . >>> is common to all the -summarize- and -tabstat- commands. That being so, >> >> you >>> >>> could get that out of the way like this >>> preserve keep if intab1 == 1 & admit_ic == 1 & btwg < . >>> <stuff> restore >>> Your -tabstat- options that are constant can be put in a little bag: >>> local opts stat(n mean median p25 p75 min max) col(stat) f(%9.0g) notot >>> nosep >>> >>> Now <stuff> can be rewritten >>> forv i = 0/5 { >>> foreach y in male singlet { >>> forv s = 0/1 { >>> di "myga==`i' & `y'==`s'" >>> qui su bwtg if myga==`i' & `y' >>> if r(N) != 0 { >>> tabstat bwtg if myga==`i', `opts' by(`y') >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> Now it is easier to see what is going on. I added some cosmetic changes >> >> too, >>> >>> which this horrible mailer may well reverse. >>> One puzzle: Did you mean to add the condition "& `y'" to the -summarize-? >> >> It >>> >>> means the same as >>> & `y' != 0 >>> -- which may or may not be what you want. >>> As a small detail of efficiency, I would always recommend -count- rather >>> than -summarize- for the purpose here. >>> Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk >>> sara khan >>> >>> Many thanks Maarten for your advice. I managed to resolve it with the >>> following code: >>> >>> forv i=0/5 { >>> foreach y in male singlet{ >>> forv s=0/1{ >>> di "myga==`i' & `y'==`s'" >>> qui su bwtg if myga==`i' & intab1==1 & admit_ic==1 & bwtg<. & `y' >>> if r(N)!=0{ >>> tabstat bwtg if myga==`i' & intab1==1 & admit_ic==1 & bwtg<., stat(n >>> mean median p25 p75 min max ) by(`y') col(stat) f(%9.0g) notot nosep >>> >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Maarten buis <maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> --- On Tue, 27/4/10, sara khan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I just tried this but the output only shows the display >>>>> results and nothing from tabstat. >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> -capture- works for me: >>>> >>>> *----------------- begin example --------------------- >>>> sysuse auto, clear >>>> forvalues i = 0/5 { >>>> capture noisily tabstat mpg if rep78== `i', /// >>>> s(n mean) by(foreign) >>>> } >>>> *-------------------- end example ------------------- >>>> >>>> In order to debug your loop I would build it step by step: >>>> step 1: no looping, no locals, no -if- just a single -tatstat- command >>>> step 2: add -capture noisily- >>>> step 3: add some -if- conditions >>>> step 4: build a single loop (e.g. over i but not over y) >>>> etc. etc. >>> >>> * >>> * 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/ >>> >>> >>> * >>> * 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/ >>> >> * >> * 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/ >> >> * >> * 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/ >> > * > * 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/ > * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>

**References**:**Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*sara khan <sarakhanum84@googlemail.com>

**Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*Maarten buis <maartenbuis@yahoo.co.uk>

**Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*sara khan <sarakhanum84@googlemail.com>

**RE: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**RE: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net>

**Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat***From:*Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: comas in numbrers** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: Overriding a loop if 0 observations using tabstat** - Index(es):