Re: Changing database to SQL from DDS

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Leif Svalgaard wrote:

> excuse me, but isn't the Single Level Store supposed to make all this
> talk about blocking irrelevant? We used to hear that "traditional
> computers" were worse than SLS because data had to transferred
> from the disk into blocks of memory before being processed. SLS was
> supposed to make that obsolete. No?

Old 36 code has a lot of blocking parms in it, so blocking apparently made
a difference.  When disk is read it is read into something, that something
is unlikely to be the CPU cache, even on a single level store system.  The
CPU can't do its work directly on the disk or even directly on the RAM.
The read operation must store what it reads from disk somewhere where the
cpu can merge the data with the instruction stream and then execute.

James Rich