Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:40:07 -0800
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "David L. Cassell" <cassell.david@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Help with making SQL/Data Step More Efficient
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Gerstle, John" <yzg9@CDC.GOV> replied:
Oops, you appear to have confused me with MIXEDmaster McLerran. But
a common mistake. All us statisticians look alike. Like in the old
Patty Duke show, where Patty Duke played identical cousin statisticians.
Remember the old theme song? "...you could lose your mind, when
are two of a kind!" Hey, that's why, whenever we get together,
> The "later sampling analyses", as I've succinctly put it, will be
> straight forward sampling and PROC SURVEYSELECT. But I would still
> create the large dataset.
Okay, here's my question. Why? What is the reason you need the larger
Cartesian-product data set in order to do these sampling exercises? My
originla point was that, if you explicated more fully, we might be able
find a way out of the need for the Cartesian product.
> Are you suggesting that it would be wiser to NOT create/save smaller
> datasets, but just save the large one? I can easily add an indicator
> variable that would distinguish the groups to sample for use later.
Yes. If all you need is stratified sampling, then you can do that from
single data set with your 'indicator variable' serving as your stratum
variable. But I *still* would liek to hear why the Cartesian product is
needed for the sampling.
> BTW...thanks for the front-line reporting. I'm quite excited to visit
> fair city. My brother has mentioned that it's my kind of town.
There's a Starbucks every thirty feet in Seattle (some sort of city
so you can't miss the coffee. In fact, if it's raining, just cut
Starbucks stores, one after the other, until you reach your intended
There are enough of them now that they're nearly adjoining. I can't
wait to find
out whether there's a Starbucks in every meeting room at the convention
David Cassell, CSC
Senior computing specialist