RE: Subfile performance question

True, that's why the 64k limit was important. One had to write their own subfile handlers (or whatever) but once you did that the method was easily transportable to other programs. I gave a session on this at COMMON ages ago; some people thought it couldn't be done, others, I discovered, had already figured out how to do it. Dennis, from his earlier reply, was apparently one of the latter. The screen panel was still array driven, Nick. No way around that. Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe there was using relative row numbers, but that, I think, would have been more of a headache than I would have wanted.

Jerry C. Adams
IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
--
B&W Wholesale
office: 615-995-7024
email: jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nick_Radich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:35 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: RE: Subfile performance question

I couldn't do subfiles on the S/34 and S36. We had to use arrays.



Thanx,

Nick



Nick Radich
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
EPC Molding, Inc.
Direct (320) 679-6683
Toll free (800) 388-2155 ext. 6683
Fax (320) 679-4516
nick_radich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Jerry Adams <Jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
02/18/2010 02:37 PM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
RE: Subfile performance question






Yeah, on the /34/36 you could only do page-at-a-time subfiles because of
the 64k program size limit.

Jerry C. Adams
IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
--
B&W Wholesale
office: 615-995-7024
email: jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:10 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Subfile performance question

Jeff,

This might explain it. My experience is S/34, S/36, and AS/400 et al. I
don't know what my coworkers experience is, maybe they started out on a
S/38 and are remembering this situation. They did mention that they had
been told this way back in the beginning and they have been around for a
while.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jeff Young
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:44 AM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: Subfile performance question

Rick,
A very loooooong time ago, back in the early days of the S/38 (yes, I was
there on R0.5), the hardware was not fast enough to keep up with the OS
functions. Among those was subfile processing. Back then, there was in
fact a severe performance impact of letting the system handle any part of
the roll function, so we coded it ourselves.
Today, using the proper type of subfile, there is no reason to not let the
system handle at least the roll back function (provided that your prior
data is static).
A load all subfile, where the system handles everything, is good when you
have a limited amount of static data, and can get it to the user in a
timely fashion.

Hope this trip back in memory lane helps.

Jeff Young
Sr. Programmer Analyst
IBM -e(logo) server Certified Systems Exper - iSeries Technical Solutions
V5R2 IBM Certified Specialist- e(logo) server i5Series Technical
Solutions Designer V5R3 IBM Certified Specialist- e(logo)server i5Series
Technical Solutions Implementer V5R3

Privileged and Confidential. This e-mail, and any attachments there to,
is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain
privileged or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please notify me immediately by a return e-mail and delete this
e-mail. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.