Re: Performance of *MAX4GB files vs *MAX1TB

*MAX4GB/*MAX1TB relates to different structures of index/access path to be
used.
Apart form obvious difference in size limits for the index - as name
implies -, *MAX1TB is more efficient when many concurrent jobs compete for
the same access path for update, *MAX4GB is somewhat more efficient
otherwise.

Best regards
    Alexei Pytel


Scott.Lindstrom@zenith.com on 11/22/99 03:15:56 PM

Please respond to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com

To:   midrange-l@midrange.com
cc:
Subject:  Performance of *MAX4GB files vs *MAX1TB






I think I remember John Sears stating at a COMMON presentation that
physical
files created with the parameter ACCPTHSIZ(*MAX1TB) will perform better
than
'old' files created at *MAX4GB since they execute a different (newly
written)
code path when they are accessed.

Has anyone had a chance to see if it's worthwhile changing old physical
files to
*MAX1TB to realize a performance benefit?  (Perhaps someone with a
standalone
machine for testing)?

Scott Lindstrom
Zenith Electronics


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---



+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---