RE: MCH3401 removal

Hi Leif,
I agree, however I am not using MI source/syntax, I am use the C language MI
functions, and your technique doesn't seem to have a C equivalent. 
I am concerned about performance because I am processing tens of millions of
records and need the job to finish as soon as possible. I have done several
things to optimize performance. Originally I was using a CALL to QUSROBJD to
check for object existence. By switch to the rslvsp technique, I cut a huge
check of overhead out of the routine--in fact most of the overhead was in
just that one call. So every "bit" helps.
-Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: mi400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mi400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Leif Svalgaard
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:25 AM
To: MI Programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: [MI400] MCH3401 removal

From: Bob Cozzi <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx>
> This works great! Thanks.
> Is there data that suggests that this routine is as efficient or better
than
> calling the QMH message APIs to remove the message?
> > From C, a simpler and more efficient option, especially if the exception
> > path is take with some regularity, is to replace the signal handler with
a
> > branch-point exception handler that removes messages from the job log.

It would seem to me that if you worry about efficiency (maybe you shouldn't)
that it would be better to use the zero compare value to begin with, to
prevent
the message to get to the joblog in the first place. Something tells me that
preventing it from getting to the log is better than removing it from the
log.



_______________________________________________
This is the MI Programming on the AS400 / iSeries (MI400) mailing list
To post a message email: MI400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mi400
or email: MI400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/mi400.