RE: REUSEDLT performance hit? (was EDTOBJAUT in CL program?)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
          -
Regardless of the negligible, if any, performance hit associated with
REUSEDLT, I agree with Jim's other point of keeping records in sequence
in the order they were added to the file.  In a perfect world, every
file's definition would include a "record added" timestamp, which would
make it much more likely that I would use REUSEDLT.  But since the
"world" was designed without my input, I have to live with the existing
design.  If I were forced to use REUSEDLT on some of my files without
the "added" timestamp, my job would become increasingly difficult.

Dan Bale
IT - AS/400
Handleman Company
248-362-4400  Ext. 4952
D.Bale@Handleman.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Buck Calabro [SMTP:Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:43 PM
> To:   rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject:      RE: REUSEDLT performance hit? (was EDTOBJAUT in CL
> program?)
>
> >The main reason is that there is a performance
> >hit when using deleted records, albeit a slight one.
>
> You should look at David M's post and related posts in the "REUSEDLT
> and
> Performance" thread in Feb 2001:
> http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200102/msg00026.html et.al.
> You
> might have some ammunition to influence the decision.
>   --buck