Path: news.mathworks.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews.google.com!g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: arun <aragorn168b@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: size(sparse matrix) > size(full matrix)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <8e83f86c-df5e-413d-9943-da36c83a66d2@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.124.26.250
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1253182509 22127 127.0.0.1 (17 Sep 2009 10:15:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:15:09 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.124.26.250; 
	posting-account=fyqXpgoAAABqt-0BifyaNxmZhzggFACu
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; 
	rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:571032


Hi,
I just discovered that my data set which is about 1200 * 39000 and
contains only values 0, 0.5 and 1, when stored as sparse has size of
760 MB and when stored as double has about 380 MB.
I agree, the number of zeros may not be a lot, which again might
suggest that using sparse might not be advantageous. However, why
should it result in this *explosion* of size???
if someone could clarify, it would be great.

best, arun.