Depending on how the integers are used you may have alternatives. If you are using integers as ordinals or codes, then use a literal matrix with a sufficient number of columns. e.g.
- encoding the age in years of people: using a 1-column literal matrix (or a literal vector). - dates as day numbers from 1960-01-01: use a 2-column literal matrix (sufficient for about 180 years) etc. If not ordinals or codes, use a k-column literal matrix where k e. 1 2 4 to encode k-byte integers, and convert each time you need the numbers. You have to decide is whether the extra programming complications (or paying Jsoftware to implement 32-bit integers in J64) are worth the savings in RAM. ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:13 Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Are 32bit integers in 64bit J possible? To: General forum <[email protected]> > It is theoretically possible for J64 to have k-bit integers > where k e. 8 16 32 64. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anssi Seppälä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, October 4, 2007 0:44 > Subject: [Jgeneral] Are 32bit integers in 64bit J possible? > To: General forum <[email protected]> > > Is it (even in theory) possible that 64 bit J could have 32 bit > integers? The motivation is that integer mapped files of J64 require > double size compared to J32. 1,5 GB J32 mapped is equivalent to 3 GB > J64 mapped file and the GBs of RAM have a price. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
