RE: Qualified vs Unqualified calls (Was: Database server jobs and SQL tuning)

Folks, no doubt we have a lot of committed (take that any way you want)
members on this list.  But, for my money, certainly John Earl must be in the
top tier.

        >> I guess the only way to tell for sure is to run a test....
        >> <Several hours later>
        >> OK, I'm done.

Rest assured, you can be fairly certain that John was not kidding here.

Making some assumptions here, based on the "sent" timestamp that appears on
his post, Monday 4:17 AM, John appears to have spent most of Sunday creating
and running tests.  It would appear that, after attending church in the
morning and returning home after brunch, John immediatly went to work,
developing the test "suite", running it on a dedicated AS/400 (to ensure
consistent results, of course).  His first set of tests took less than 30
minutes to run, from 13:52 to 14:13, but then spent the next __eight__ hours
interpreting those results.  Whether he sacrificed dinner for this
endeavour, only John can say.  He fired up his tests again at 22:23, and
those tests completed over an hour later, at 23:36.  

Now most of us would, at this point, pat ourselves on the back, and say
"Hey, what a day!  Get a good night's rest and analyze this tomorrow morning
for the midrange-l community so they'll have it by lunchtime."  But, no, not
John.  No, he realizes that sleep is but a small sacrifice to ensure that
the midrange-l community starts Monday off on the right foot.  Who among us
could even consider writing another line of code after the raging debate
last week on the confusion surrounding the performance issues involving
qualified vs. unqualified objects?  (Raise your hands!)  Not content to
thoroughly consider and develop the intense analysis so eloquently written
for our edification after a good night's sleep, John spent the next _four_
hours, while we were all snoozing, doing so.

We can only hope that the keyboard imprints will disappear from John's
forehead in the next day or so.

        >> (Convalescing, with obviously too much time on his hands :)

No doubt, John, no doubt.

Gratefully yours <g>,
Dan Bale

Oh, BTW, just so you know I didn't miss the results of your test, I agree
with the summary on your results.  We are talking about differences in the
range of milleseconds.  I might have worried about that on our original B05,
where there was so such thing as a millesecond <g>, but on today's AS/400s,
I just can't seem to get too worked up about it.  

(Speaking of having too much time on his hands...)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Earl [SMTP:johnearl@400security.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 4:17 AM
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      Qualified vs Unqualified calls (Was: Database server jobs
> and SQL  tuning)
> 
> Al,
> 
        <BIG snip>
+---
| 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
+---