search for: enormal

Dear List, I have some projects where I use enormous datasets. For instance, the 5% PUMS microdata from the Census Bureau. After deleting cases I may have a dataset with 7 million+ rows and 50+ columns. Will R handle a datafile of this size? If so, how? Thank you in advance, Tom Volscho ************************************ Thomas W. Volscho Graduate Student Dept. of Sociology U-2068

Hi all, SETUP: I have pairwise data on 22 chromosomes. Data matrix X for a given chromosome looks like this: 1 13 58 1.12 6 142 56 1.11 18 307 64 3.13 22 320 58 0.72 Where column 1 is person ID 1, column 2 is person ID 2, column 3 can be ignored, and column 4 is how much chromosomal sharing those two individuals have in some small portion of the chromosome. There are 9000 individual people, and

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Summary: enormous bitching about netdb.h Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.6.1p2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Build system AssignedTo: openssh-bugs at mindrot.org ReportedBy: tedm at

I am considering using LLVM in a project for a Windows CE where space is at a premium. My jaw dropped when I checked the size of HowToUseJIT.exe (VC++ Win32 debug): 15.4 MB! The release build of HowToUseJIT is "only" 3.39 MB, but this is still 85% larger than the binary to which I was thinking of adding LLVM. The top ten LLVM libraries (Win32 *.lib) are pretty huge: Release Bld Debug

On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:24 AM, David Piepgrass wrote: > The top ten LLVM libraries (Win32 *.lib) are pretty huge: > > Release Bld Debug Bld Name > 24,510,490 71,038,240 LLVMCodeGen.lib > 21,084,666 56,724,338 LLVMCore.lib > 14,624,218 37,070,488 LLVMAnalysis.lib > 11,987,202 30,711,450 LLVMScalarOpts.lib > 8,600,668 23,837,478 LLVMSelectionDAG.lib >

On Jul 27, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Why would be relevant that XCode produces library > files smaller than Visual Studio? Its comparing apples to oranges. The size of static libraries is relevant because it places an upper bound on the size of the executable. Otherwise we can only speak anecdotally about "typical" executables that use "some" of the

I''m using the plugin will_paginate with a table of more than 100,000 records, i also do a join with other table. I''m wondering if will_pagination in my situation is an appropriate choice, or whether it is better to implement something ad-hoc? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on

> > On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:24 AM, David Piepgrass wrote: > > > >> The top ten LLVM libraries (Win32 *.lib) are pretty huge: > >> > >> Release Bld Debug Bld Name > >> 24,510,490 71,038,240 LLVMCodeGen.lib > [snip] > > Not sure about Win32, but here are some numbers on OS X for > comparison: > > > > 5,282,356

Have you ever thought about what makes a good trader? I have! Apart from skills and persistence, it?s information. Knowledge is everything, and after you read this to the end, you?ll be more likely to achieve! Get C T X E . P K First Thing Today This Is Going To Explode! C T X E . P K - C a n t e x E n e r g y C o r p Global score: Excellent| Mean Recommendation: Srtong Byu| Investor

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:01 AM, David Piepgrass <dpiepgrass at mentoreng.com> wrote: >> A LLVM JIT compiler for x86 under 1 MB? I doubt it is possible without >> a major rewriting of LLVM. > > Even with no optimizations? Drat. That means I can't use it. Why? I'd never checked, but I always assumed the LLVM JIT was much larger than 3.4 MB. For comparison: [rnk at

> Why do you care about the size of library files? I assumed dynamic libraries and static libraries were similar in size, but I just checked some of my own static libraries and they are indeed much larger than the executables they compile to. Sorry, it just never occurred to me that they would be much different. > > Anyway, in the same example I mentioned that the size of HowToUseJIT

Trevor Harmon <Trevor.W.Harmon at nasa.gov> writes: > On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:24 AM, David Piepgrass wrote: > >> The top ten LLVM libraries (Win32 *.lib) are pretty huge: >> >> Release Bld Debug Bld Name >> 24,510,490 71,038,240 LLVMCodeGen.lib [snip] > Not sure about Win32, but here are some numbers on OS X for comparison: > > 5,282,356

> I'd also recommand "git pull --rebase" if the goal is to keep history > linear. Note that this has to go with a big, fat, warning, telling the > user that rebasing published history is bad. Rebase is a very good tool > to work with private history, but as soon as you've pushed it to some > place visible by other people, you should stop using it. This is

Hi, I am trying to fit the following model: sr.reg.s4.nore <- survreg(Surv(age_sym4,sym4), as.factor(lifedxm), data=bip.surv) Where age_sym4 is the age that a subject develops clinical thought problems; sym4 is whether they develop clinical thoughts problems (0 or 1); and lifedxm is mother's diagnosis: BIPOLAR, MAJOR DEPRESSION, or CONTROL. I am interested in whether or not

I've tried reporting this to Adobe, but they are remarkably deaf to such an enormous market of free software users. At least as of AR 9.3, including the latest 9.3.1, I have been unable to view or work with the savable fill-in PDFs that I've pulled off the web in the last couple of months. I have no trouble at all with them in my Windows virtual machine, but the Linux version starts up,

We have a perl cgi script that accepts uploaded files and runs clamscan on them. While observing the system performance I noticed that each clamscan process consumes up to 250MB of RAM. Is this normal for ClamAV? This seems like an enormous amount of RAM, for simply scanning one file for viruses.

I created a btrfs file system with a single 420 megabyte file in it. And, when I look at the file system with btrfs-debug, I see gigantic extents, as large as 99 megabytes: > $ sudo btrfs-debug-tree /dev/sdb | grep extent > ... > dev extent chunk_tree 3 > dev extent chunk_tree 3 > extent data disk byte 80084992 nr 99958784 > extent data

> Further to my previous post, I have made an interesting discovery. This > particular slowdown only occurs from clients that are running > Windows 98. The Windows98 explorer (and possibly other programs) incorrectly set the "sync" bit in write requests to network shares. This causes an enormous slowdown as Samba (quite correctly) does a fsync() on the file after each write.

David Piepgrass <dpiepgrass at mentoreng.com> writes: >> Comparing the size of the static libraries makes little sense, and even >> less when they are compiled by different tools. What really matters is >> the size of the executables. >> >> I agree that LLVM can be considered a heavyweight dependency on this >> aspect. > > Why is the size of static

Hello, lately, I have been thinking about how to resolve the problem with that the program size increases enormously when including <iostream> when compiling with libstdc++. In this library, in <iostream> there is a static object __ioinit initialized like so: ... // For construction of filebuffers for cout, cin, cerr, clog et. al. static ios_base::Init __ioinit; ... This