Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:47:48 -0400
Reply-To: Lisa Stickney <Lts1@ptd.net>
Sender: "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Lisa Stickney <Lts1@ptd.net>
Subject: Re: Using Execute
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
As always, your point is well taken. IMHO, I think that for many people
using Execute has become a habit. I, myself, confess to being a former
Execute user (is there a self-help group for that?). I got in the habit of
using Execute about 4 years ago when I started using SPSS, after a nearly 12
year hiatus. Since I never used it a lot, I didn't remember the syntax,
structure or nuances of the language, so I used the Paste button to
"refresh" my memory & learn the syntax. If you do that, and don't really
understand when/why execute is needed, it's easy to get in the habit of
putting them in, often way too frequently. Plus, as ViAnn pointed out,
unless your file is large or your processor very slow, you're not likely to
notice the difference. That said, however, once I understood the function
of Execute, I starting making a point to use it considerably less frequently
(I guess there's still a programmer lurking in me :) So, in short and on
behalf of everyone on this list, thanks for all your help in educating us.
Lisa T. Stickney
The Fox School of Business
> The logic looks fine. But the EXECUTE statements
> *are not recommended*. They contribute nothing;
> they slow processing, by forcing the whole file
> to be read for each one.
> Now, diatribe isn't always the best way to make a
> point. Would anybody who's an 'EXECUTE' user,
> like to say why the statement seems to be a good
> idea? Maybe we can help clear up misunderstandings.
> (For cases where EXECUTE is needed, see section
> "Data Management/ 2. Best Practices and
> Efficiency Tips/ Use EXECUTE Sparingly," in:
> Levesque, Raynald, and SPSS, Inc., "SPSSŪ
> Programming and Data Management, 3rd Edition/A
> Guide for SPSSŪ and SASŪ Users". SPSS, Inc.,
> Chicago, IL, 2006; downloadable free from the SPSS, Inc., Web site.
>>This is a long solution. I think others would have an easier solution.
> There are variations, but I can't think of
> anything that's much simpler.