Thank you for the report.
Best regards,
Tomasz Janeczko
amibroker.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Pottasch
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: AmiBroker 5.27.0 ALPHA released
hi,
I am running the alpha version since this morning and sofar I did not
encounter any problems.
regards, Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Tomasz Janeczko
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: AmiBroker 5.27.0 ALPHA released
Issues first, new features later.
First I need to know about issues people have with alpha and
fix any issues first. Very little feedback has been collected until now.
Best regards,
Tomasz Janeczko
amibroker.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:04 PM
Subject: [amibroker] Re: AmiBroker 5.27.0 ALPHA released
> Tomasz,
>
> do you have an eta on when this bid/ask data will be implemented? It's
not mentioned in the release notes.
>
> Regards,
> Julian.
>
> --- In [email protected], "Tomasz Janeczko" <gro...@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Sorry, but others have demanded storing Bid/Ask along with trade data
so, contrary to your belief
>> tick data is NOT smaller than bar data. Plus it does NOT need 44 bytes
to store bar data.
>> I don't know were you get this figure from. Single bar is 40 (fourty)
bytes.
>>
>> As for tick data you get
>> 64 bit date time (8 bytes), 4 bytes trade price, 4 byte trade volume, 4
byte bid, 4 byte bid size, 4 byte ask, 4 byte ask size.
>> That's 32 bytes MINIMUM. There are other things that are comming as
exchange code, tick number etc.
>>
>> So contrary to your belief tick data is not smaller than bar data.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tomasz Janeczko
>> amibroker.com
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "cpescho" <cpes...@...>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:29 AM
>> Subject: [amibroker] Re: AmiBroker 5.27.0 ALPHA released
>>
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > are there any plans to account for large tick database backtesting? 44
Bytes is great for storing a OHLC bar, but for a single
>> > tick its still a lot since you dont have OHL with tick data.
>> >
>> > Right now my biggest problem backtesting tick data is memory
limitation. Wasting disk space is not my concern although i think
>> > one
>> > can eliminate the disk i/o bottleneck if a more compact format is
stored on disk.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
>> > This group is for the discussion between users only.
>> > This is *NOT* technical support channel.
>> >
>> > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
>> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
>> >
>> > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
>> > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
>> > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
>> >
>> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
>> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
> This group is for the discussion between users only.
> This is *NOT* technical support channel.
>
> TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
> SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
>
> TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
> http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
> (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
>
> For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
