|Date: ||Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:34:07 -0700|
|Reply-To: ||David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: Proc IML: How to create a macro variable form the do loop
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; format=flowed|
email@example.com wrote to me:
>Well I barely use proc IML. When we use it, it is for very special tasks
>that are not readily available in SAS.
>My understanding of the current issue, as I am not the one involved on that
>project, is that the table was getting too large and it needed to be
>recorded in a separate table in order to keep track of the data.
>I understand your objective.
>I just don't understand why you want to do it. I'll skip over my
>usual "why are you doing this in IML instead of a faster SAS tool"
>tirade and go straight to my next rant.
>Keeping your data in a single tall-and-thin table is going to be far more
>useful for later processing. Splitting everything into individual tables
>is usually a programmnig nightmare waiting to happen. Do you really
>have to do this?
>David L. Cassell
>3115 NW Norwood Pl.
>Corvallis OR 97330
Okay, so it sounds as if you need to abandon PROC IML to handle the fact
that the tables are squishing your available RAM. It is possible to get
of your RAM allocated for this use, but that's a stopgap measure.
So I'm going to guess that a better approach would be to quantify the
methods being used, and look for other SAS procs which will do them.
What are the tasks being pursued here?
David L. Cassell
3115 NW Norwood Pl.
Corvallis OR 97330
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft® Office Live!