LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (July 2010, week 3)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:05:30 -0400
Reply-To:     Andy Arnold <awasas@COX.NET>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Andy Arnold <awasas@COX.NET>
Subject:      In search of a more efficient program

Background: I've inherited a large, complex SAS program. Most files are quite small; however, some are extremely large and have become a problem. The files in question have 12-24 fields that are mostly numeric with a few short (1-4character) fields. The files that are killing me have 20M records and one has 160M records. The files don't use SAS compression because the records are too short to make compression cost & time effective.

Problem 1: What are the trade-offs if I force numeric length to 4 or 2? Does SAS always use a NUM 8 format internally? If I force short numeric field lengths, will SAS have to convert them up to length=8 and back down again in order to use the data?

Problem 2: What are the trade-offs if I use an index instead of a sort? The problem sort takes an hour, uses a single numeric key with about 10 distinct values, sorts 20M records that are about 100 bytes long. I've been successful with indexing before; in that situation, I needed to sort the file in 15 different sequences.

Thanks for your input and advice.

--Andy


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page