| Date: | Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:43:09 -0400 |
| Reply-To: | Ian Whitlock <WHITLOI1@WESTAT.COM> |
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> |
| From: | Ian Whitlock <WHITLOI1@WESTAT.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: How to delete a table? |
|
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
|---|
Dianne,
You wrote
>The only danger I see is that it would "go away" or "change" in subsequent
>versions of SAS, but that does not seem to be much of a worry.
On the contrary, it won't go away, and the danger is that it doesn't change.
It is just as good as it was in version 5 and no better.
For example,
13 data w / view = w ; x = 1 ;
14 run ;
NOTE: DATA STEP view saved on file WORK.W.
NOTE: A stored DATA STEP view cannot run under a different operating system.
NOTE: DATA statement used:
real time 0.05 seconds
cpu time 0.01 seconds
15
16 proc delete data = w ; run ;
WARNING: File WORK.W.DATA does not exist.
NOTE: PROCEDURE DELETE used:
real time 0.01 seconds
cpu time 0.01 seconds
Heaven knows what it will do with multi-volume data sets, 4 gig data sets
and version 9 datasets set up for parallel processing or an Access data base
table. Stable procs in a changing world are very dangerous to use in the
future.
On the other hand, it does seem to work with long names and indexed data, so
maybe you will be lucky some of the time. Are you keeping the documentation
in your office up to date?
IanWhitlock@westat.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dianne Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 5:25 PM
To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to delete a table?
>> I can't fathom why one would want to use an undocumented aspect of a >>
language (unless it is not production code), when a simple, >adequate, >>
fully documented solution (such as proc datasets) exists...it seems >> like
it's asking for trouble to use proc delete in place of proc >> datasets.
I think its a misnomer and an exaggeration to call proc delete
"undocumented." I have plenty of documentation for it in my office <g>, and
a Reference Card that documents usage as
PROC DELETE [DATA=SASdataset ...] ;
I agree that it is simpler, and keeps the log cleaner than DATASETS when you
forget to specify NOLIST.
The only danger I see is that it would "go away" or "change" in subsequent
versions of SAS, but that does not seem to be much of a worry.
Dianne Louise Rhodes
Sr. Systems Analyst
Westat
|