|
Buck, You can avoid long search times in empty large arrays if you use the old trick of loading from the end of the array first. In a 1000 element array 'BOOTH' is element 1000, 'BUCK' is element 9999. You code the LOOKUP to search from element 9999 (or lower down depending on how many elements were loaded into the array) up. 'SIMON' LOOKUP ARRAY(9999) only takes two comparisons of the array. Paul -- Paul Morgan Senior Programmer Analyst - Retail J. Jill Group 100 Birch Pond Drive, PO Box 2009 Tilton, NH 03276-2009 Phone: (603) 266-2117 Fax: (603) 266-2333 "Buck Calabro" wrote > Searching for a non-existent element with LOOKUP can be quite > expensive; possibly longer than doing a CHAIN. This is one of those > cases I tend to cite when someone posts a performance question, and > the answer seems to be 'put it in an array.' You need to benchmark it > with your own dataset on your own machine. > --buck
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
