Is Regression Using Proc IML Faster?
in [SAS]
|
From: Claus Yeh on 23 Jan 2010 15:34 Dear SAS guru's, I have been using proc glm and proc logistic for a while now. these procedures are great - alot of options and relatively easy to use. However, I always felt that they are a bit slow since they carry alot of calculations and outputs that are not always needed. I am thinking about diving into Proc IML and write a more basic code for regression. Has anyone tried that and got much faster run time? thank you, claus
From: Arthur Tabachneck on 23 Jan 2010 16:31 Claus, I don't know which would be faster, but will make you an offer. Here is some stater code: http://www.psych.yorku.ca/lab/psy6140/ex/iml.htm My offer: I provide the above starter code .. you do the tests .. then you let the list know which ended up being faster. Deal? Art ---------- On Jan 23, 3:34 pm, Claus Yeh <phoebe.caulfiel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear SAS guru's, > > I have been using proc glm and proc logistic for a while now. these > procedures are great - alot of options and relatively easy to use. > > However, I always felt that they are a bit slow since they carry alot > of calculations and outputs that are not always needed. > > I am thinking about diving into Proc IML and write a more basic code > for regression. > > Has anyone tried that and got much faster run time? > > thank you, > claus
From: tanwan on 23 Jan 2010 19:55 GLM and Logistic are well documented, tested, and they do what they are supposed and intended to do. What are the odds that you will make a coding error with IML that you wont even notice, trying to re-invent a wheel? Besides, how much time are you going to save? A few seconds? A few minutes? I think on average one spends 95% of the time coding code, and then 5% running the code. You can use those few extra moments for a trip to the water cooler, call someone significant, or just browse the latest online news. T
From: Arthur Tabachneck on 23 Jan 2010 21:07 Tanwan, Your comment reminds me of my first job as an analyst where I worked with two systems, Statistical Analysis System (on an IBM 360) and a memory-card-based HP electronic calculator. All of the correlational analyses, for whatever reason, were always done with the calculator's stock program. I found it surprising that all of the relationships discovered were positive ones. Of course, as it turned out, they weren't. The software makers had made a mistake in their programming. What I learned from that experience was to NEVER assume that ANY software maker was infallible. Besides, in the OPs case, what a perfect way to learn IML, learn more about regression, and simultaneously be able to compare their results with SAS output and discover which is correct or incorrect and why. Art ---------- On Jan 23, 7:55 pm, tanwan <tanwanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > GLM and Logistic are well documented, tested, and they do what they > are supposed and intended to do. What are the odds that you will make > a coding error with IML that you wont even notice, trying to re-invent > a wheel? > > Besides, how much time are you going to save? A few seconds? A few > minutes? I think on average one spends 95% of the time coding code, > and then 5% running the code. You can use those few extra moments for > a trip to the water cooler, call someone significant, or just browse > the latest online news. > > T
From: Murphy Choy on 23 Jan 2010 21:13 Hi, I have tried simple linear regression on iml. It was slightly faster but it ran into memory problems when I feed a large data to it. At the same time, you can also look at using the regression iml macro provided in the user guide which can be very useful. ------Original Message------ From: Arthur Tabachneck Sender: SAS(r) Discussion To: SAS-L(a)LISTSERV.UGA.EDU ReplyTo: Arthur Tabachneck Subject: Re: Is Regression Using Proc IML Faster? Sent: Jan 24, 2010 10:07 AM Tanwan, Your comment reminds me of my first job as an analyst where I worked with two systems, Statistical Analysis System (on an IBM 360) and a memory-card-based HP electronic calculator. All of the correlational analyses, for whatever reason, were always done with the calculator's stock program. I found it surprising that all of the relationships discovered were positive ones. Of course, as it turned out, they weren't. The software makers had made a mistake in their programming. What I learned from that experience was to NEVER assume that ANY software maker was infallible. Besides, in the OPs case, what a perfect way to learn IML, learn more about regression, and simultaneously be able to compare their results with SAS output and discover which is correct or incorrect and why. Art ---------- On Jan 23, 7:55 pm, tanwan <tanwanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > GLM and Logistic are well documented, tested, and they do what they > are supposed and intended to do. What are the odds that you will make > a coding error with IML that you wont even notice, trying to re-invent > a wheel? > > Besides, how much time are you going to save? A few seconds? A few > minutes? I think on average one spends 95% of the time coding code, > and then 5% running the code. You can use those few extra moments for > a trip to the water cooler, call someone significant, or just browse > the latest online news. > > T Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -- Regards, Murphy Choy Certified Advanced Programmer for SAS V9 Certified Basic Programmer for SAS V9
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Partial Nesting in Proc Mixed Next: question asked in an Interview |