robut@forest.go.th
2003-May-09 13:56 UTC
[Rd] Re: [R] windows data editor changes dimensions displayed data frames (PR#2963)
And I can confirm it with platform i686-pc-linux-gnu arch i686 os linux-gnu system i686, linux-gnu status major 1 minor 7.0 year 2003 month 04 day 16 language R so it is not a Windows issue. Cheers, Robert Cunningham Duncan Murdoch writes: > On Fri, 09 May 2003 11:34:08 +0300, Bernd Ebersberger > <bernd.ebersberger@vtt.fi> wrote: > > >dear R-tists, > > > >i am experiencing a problem with the data editor in the windows version of > >R 1.6.1 envoked with the command 'fix'. > > > >the data editor changes the size of large data frames. > > I can confirm this in the current R-patched. I'll take a look. It > might be that some limitation to the code means you won't be able to > edit big data frames (it looks like somewhere it's using a 16 bit row > count), but it certainly shouldn't silently change things. > > Duncan Murdoch > > >a simple example illustrates this: > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > dfrm <- data.frame(no=c(1:100000)) > > > length(dfrm[,1]) > > > >[1] 100000 > > > > > fix(dfrm) > > > > > length(dfrm[,1]) > > > >[1] 34464 > > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >does anybody have a quick remedy for this? > > > >i am not sure whether it is worth putting much developmental effort in > >solving this particular problem. > > > >however, i believe that one should be aware of it when working with large > >data sets. > > > > > >greetings from the northern edge of europe. > > > >bernd. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >
Duncan Murdoch
2003-May-09 15:03 UTC
[Rd] Re: [R] windows data editor changes dimensions displayed data frames (PR#2963)
The problem in the Windows version is in src/gnuwin32/dataentry.c, where the number of rows is stored in sxpinfo.gp, a 16 bit field. I'm sure I don't want to change the size of that field now (though perhaps in a later version it would be reasonable), I'm not sure if there's a better place to put the row count. I imagine there's a similar implementation in the Unix version, but I haven't looked there yet. Duncan Murdoch