×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Paul Nelson
Office 512-392-2577
Cell 708-670-6978
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of sjl
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:30 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Efficiency question on file extents...
I have a very long-running conversion job stream which we are about to kick
off, and I'm wondering if it will save time if I change the PF's to have an
initial size that is at least as large as the number of records that I know
will be written to each file.
For example, I have an address master file named ADDRESSES which ended up
with almost 500,000 records during the last conversion.
Will it save much time if I do CHGPF(ADDRESSES) SIZE(500000 10000 100)
ALLOCATE(*YES) so that it will have an initial allocation of 500,000 records
once it is cleared, instead of letting it default to SIZE(100000 10000 100)
and the system having to do extents on it once it hit the maximum size of
100,000 records?
Regards,
sjl
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
