> -----Original Message----- > From: jt > > But you said ASCEND causes a binary search...?!? Sheesh... When did THAT > happen...?!? (I'd always thought it still used sequential search, and > ASCEND just allowed for *LT or *GT type lookups.) That'd be two things, > today...:-) I have to eat a substantial bit of crow here, JT. I did the one thing I hate most - I typed in an assumption as fact. I was told this way back in the early days of my programming career, and I honestly never bothered to check it, I assumed it was so because it made such good sense. It made sense to me that IBM, with all their knowledge in writing compilers, would indeed be smart enough to use something as fundamentally sound as a binary search algorithm, but this turns out not to be true, at least from empirical evidence. Modifying my test program to compare the times of a lookup on an acending array and a lookup on a non-ascending array yielded exactly the same results, even after 5,000,000 repetitions. In my copious free time, I might try to check the generated MI code, but the actual test shows me that the code is exactly the same for each one. Just trying to set the record straight.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact