I doubt that this follows.
-collapse- is still interpreted code
as well.
It's doing what you're doing, plus
some other checks.
That said, you can reduce the margin
by using -collapse, fast-.
Nick
[email protected]
Chris Ruebeck
> I'll accept the guess. But note that my example was only twice as
> fast, so there would still seem to be some point where the more
> efficient coding of -collapse- wins.
> On Feb 21, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
> >
> > I'll make a guess. -collapse- can never be faster than
> customised code
> > that focuses
> > on exactly what you want to do, as typically you are
> replacing a few
> > hundred lines of
> > Stata with a few.
> >
> > Chris Ruebeck wrote
> >>
> >> When we generate bootstrapped standard errors and perform
> Monte Carlo
> >> analyses, it's useful to make the code as speedy as
> possible. So I
> >> thought about -collapse- for a moment and performed the following
> >> speed test listed below. The timing results follow it,
> showing that
> >> my homebrewed version was twice as fast as -collapse-.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
