Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:54:56 -0700
Reply-To: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: PROC TRANSPOSE, reorg data
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>I see our own David Cassell hasnt seen this thread probably due to the fact
>that he is cleaning his crystal ball again so I will step in knowing full
>well I will get plenty of nay sayer emails chastizing me about my advice on
>this but here it goes.
>Dont molest your data set in this manner. What you will end up with is a
>very short but very wide data set. Which is bad for processing speed and
>bad for coding. Basically you will be holding information which should be
>in your data set as a variables value in you variable names. This just
>makes the job of doing any type of codeing which is data driven and/or
>maintainable to any reasonable degree impossible.
>Now I would change your data structure but not in the way that you have
>asked but rather in the opposite direction and make it longer and thinner.
>Since I have no clue what V1 V2 V3 actually are in your data set I will
>to use generic names. Ideally you would want to make these names
>zipcode store_id Num V
>00001 1 1 A
>00001 1 2 B
>00001 1 3 C
>00001 2 1 A
>00001 2 2 B
>00001 2 3 C
I predicted that he'd say that, so I just didn't need to write in. :-)
Let me add that requests to have this sort of display in output can
often be solved using PROC REPORT or PROC TABULATE to do your
David L. Cassell
3115 NW Norwood Pl.
Corvallis OR 97330
MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John. Enter to win today.