|Date: ||Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:42:14 -0800|
|Reply-To: ||Brian Sauer <brian.sauer@GMAIL.COM>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||Brian Sauer <brian.sauer@GMAIL.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: proc logistic: 'out of memory'|
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1|
On Feb 8, 10:26 am, stringplaye...@YAHOO.COM (Dale McLerran) wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/7/10, Brian Sauer <brian.sa...@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > From: Brian Sauer <brian.sa...@GMAIL.COM>
> > Subject: Re: proc logistic: 'out of memory'
> > To: SA...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Date: Sunday, February 7, 2010, 4:47 PM
> > I am in the process of testing the NLMIXED technique that Dale
> > mentioned for my problem, but I wanted to share the answer I received
> > from SAS support.
> > Brian,
> > The problem is caused by the default check for dependencies between
> > strata and the predictors in SAS 9.1. This can require a large amount
> > of memory when there are many strata. You can turn off this check by
> > specifying the NOLINDEP option in the STRATA statement. For example:
> > strata strata / nonlindep;
> > This check is off by default in all the current SAS 9.2 releases.
> > ----
> > NOTE: If you have any follow-up questions on this matter, please
> > reply to this email by February 10, 2010.
> > - - - - - - - - -
> > David Schlotzhauer
> > Phone: (919) 677-8008
> > Senior Statistical Consultant Web:
> > support.sas.com/ts
> > SAS Institute Inc.
> OK, that is useful to know. However, the syntax specified above
> does not match syntax in documentation of version 9.1.3 or 9.2.
> The 9.2 documentation indicates the following syntax which I
> would think would be the official syntax:
> strata ... / CHECKDEPENDENCY=NONE;
> Neither the CHECKDEPENDENCY option nor the NONLINEDEP option is
> indicated in version 9.1.3 documentation. Have you tried the
> syntax with NONLINDEP specified as an option in one (or both)
> of these versions?
> Just as an aside, I am sure that it is reasonable to perform
> this sort of linear dependency check when the number of strata
> is small. However, it would seem that SI might have implemented
> the linear dependency checking with an initial determination of
> the number of strata in the data set. If the number of strata
> is above a certain level (say, 1000), then the linear dependency
> checking would not be enforced (under the assumption that given
> a large number of strata, it is not likely that one would
> encounter complete linear dependency between covariates and
> strata. But from the standpoint of a computer programmer, I
> can see where it is always good to evaluate whether the data
> conform to the requirements of the estimation procedure.
> Dale McLerran
> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
> mailto: dmclerra@NO_SPAMfhcrc.org
> Ph: (206) 667-2926
> Fax: (206) 667-5977
You are correct, the NONLINDEP causes an error. I am testing default
and CHECKDEPENDENCY = NON now