[Gretl-users] Re: Resample without replacement (Artur Tarassow)
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> If this order-preserving thing is really needed, this then could become a
> third choice argument?
Actually, I'm struggling to find a case when the order-preserved output would
be indispensable. Allin, do you have anything in mind?
I wasn't envisaging preservation of order as indispensable, just
thinking of uses where order didn't matter -- in which case I thought
it was potentially a good deal quicker to leave the order as is
(particularly if the sample size is a large fraction of the available
rows). But I now think I have a better way of combining selection and
shuffling, so I'm ready to drop the idea of an order-preserving
option.
As for the possibility of folding the without-replacement variant into
resample(), is the idea that without-replacement would also support
the blocksize option? (It would be easier if it didn't!)
Allin