On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Am 13.01.2021 um 01:20 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Hm, previously I had written that the uncompressed file (gdtb, new
missing style) takes up 745MB, but now (back on the first machine again)
I'm actually unable to replicate such a large file...
>> If I use the old missings choice, that brings me back to the question
>> about compression, because:
>> - old missings, compression level 0, gdtb: 25900KB
>> - old missings, compression level 1, gdtb: 25900KB
>> How is this same number of KB possible?
> That'll happen if, when minimal (> 0) computational resources are
> devoted to finding matching strings across successive 32k blocks of
> data, nothing useful is found. See Mark Adler's response at
OK, thanks. Of course for my concrete example it's all not very
important, it's just about checking whether the user choices are
correctly given and honored.
But I couldn't find any explanation about "old" vs. "new"
the gdtb format, was it about using gretl's own encoding vs. the IEEE
Yes, the "old" treatment of missing values in a gdtb save means it
uses the definition of NA in gretl < 2018c, while the "new" (now
more than 2 years old) version uses NaN. The only reason to use the
old version is if you want the file to be readable by gretl 2018b or
earlier. It may be about time to retire that option?