[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Using Downloader/ASCII files to update



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links



On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Malcolm Smith wrote:

> Hi!
Howdy.

> I am not sure about the source for free quotes on the 'net as I don't

Yahoo is one source for stock quotes.

> deal with Emerging Markets, just the UK one so I have no idea about free
> NYSE quotes.  I understand that quotes are cheap/free in the US but I
> would pass on a word of warning based on my experiences here in the UK.
> That is to be beware of cheap quote services; I have found them to be
> dreadful; but things may be better on the left side of the pond.

The accuracy is easily tested. Some time ago I proposed a test (well, 
comparison) of historical data from several quote vendors. I would 
include the free data as well.

> I wouldn't bother going via Excel; this seems to be a torturous route
> with little to show for it.  I would recommend that you write (or get

Someone proposed using web retrieval directly into Excel 97, a search on 
dejanews would probably turn up the article, I believe in comp.spreadsheets.

> someone to do it for you) a Perl script to get the data in the right
> shape and to check that the High is higher than the Low and that sort of
> thing.  Then import the ASCII data from the Perl script (which will run
> in seconds) into Downloader.

Yes, this would be much faster than the Excel approach.

> 
> One tip: when importing data into Downloader, make sure that it is
> sorted otherwise Downloader takes an age to open the correct folders and
> things.  I have found that it's not the number of records that is the
> factor that takes the time, but the number of different stocks in the
> import file - an unsorted import file counts each record as one stock -
> a five day sorted import file takes a fifth of the time.

By sort, do you mean a grouping of tickers by date, or a grouping of 
dates by ticker? Also, do you know offhand of performance difference on 
direction of date order (oldest - newest vs. newest - oldest)?

Cheers,

Jim