|
On May 4, 4:16 pm, dorjeta...@GOOGLEMAIL.COM (karma) wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Liking the idea of the second set statement :-) , putting together
> some of the good ideas so far, we can also do:
>
> data have;
> input (x1-x8)($2. +1);
> cards;
> V1 V2 V3 V1 V2 V4 V3
> V4 V4 V4 V3 V2 V2 V3
> V1 V4 V4 V4 V1 V1 V4
> ;
> data want ;
> set have;
> array xs x:;
> call sortc (of x: ) ;
> do _n_ = 1 to dim(xs)-1;
> if xs(_n_)=xs(_n_+1) then call missing(xs(_n_));
> end;
> UniqueVals=countW(catx(' ',of x:));
> set have ;
> run ;
>
Here is a variant with a guard position in the array to simplify the
looping, and no extraneous post looping function call.
In other words, post sort a comparison alone is sufficient in
determining an increment in the distinct accumulator.
data have;
input (x1-x8)($2. +1);
cards;
V1 V2 V3 V1 V2 V4 V3
V4 V4 V4 V3 V2 V2 V3
V1 V4 V4 V4 V1 V1 V4
;
data want ;
set have;
call sortc (of x: ) ;
array xs guard x:;
count = 0;
do _n_ = 2 to dim(xs);
count + (not missing (xs(_n_)) and xs(_n_) ne xs(_n_-1));
end;
run ;
The problem with using SORT is that the original data order is lost.
So if you want to retain the original order, you would need to sort a
copy, or perhaps just use the HASH approach you showed.
--
Richard A. DeVenezia
http://www.devenezia.com
| 
