This site uses different types of cookies, including analytics and functional cookies (its own and from other sites). To change your cookie settings or find out more, click here. If you continue browsing our website, you accept these cookies.
I've created a batch macro that uses the Network Analysis tool. My data set has about 4,000 subgroups of networks within it to be analyzed. I am mostly interested in the data table that is generated by the "D" output, and not so interested in the graphic that is generated by the "I" output.
I am quite certain that it is this "I" output generation that is causing my workflow to take an extremely long time to run. Deleting the "I" output and saving a modified version of the macro didn't help....as everything is still happening within the R code tool. Is it possible to tweak the code in the R tool within the macro to stop generating the graphics and only generate the data table in order to improve performance?
I'm not sure if it will make your macro too much faster, but yes you can remove the chart creation in the R tool by deleting the code shown below, as well as the reporting tool in the workflow. Just make sure to save the macro as something else rather than overwriting if you want the ability to use the charts through the tool in the future.
Running the macro before making edits took 5.6 seconds, after edits it took 4.5 seconds (but this is just the macro as is; no added data). I'd be interested to see if you see a bigger efficiency in your macro though, because in my experience the reporting tools take more time when passing larger datasets through them. Perhaps it is both the render function in the R tool AND the reporting tool that are taking large amounts of time.
@mmenth's post is 100% correct - that modification would be made in the Network Analysis tool itself.
A couple things to add - after you modify the tool and re-save it, you'll have to change out the Network Analysis tool in your macro because it will still be pointed at the un-edited one if you SAVE AS like mmenth recommends (I second that recommendation).
Can you perhaps share your batch macro? I suspect there are other items at play and I might be able to help tweak other portions of the macro to increase efficiency - Batch macros are potentially complicated beasts.