Re: SETLL vs CHAIN performance comparisons

Charlie,

>I have just completed some performance testing between SETLL and CHAIN.  Two
>different RPG IV prorams using 20,000 CHAINs versus SETLLs on a 130,000
>record file on a Model F04 yielded the following results:

>1.  If ALL records are found, SETLL is more efficient than CHAIN (75 seconds
>versus 86 seconds).  

>2.  If NO records are found, SETLL is less efficient than CHAIN (84 seconds
>versus versus 62 seconds).

>I am very suprised with these results.  They are not consistent with what
>how I thought SETLL and CHAIN worked.

 There's another factor to take into account.  How many of the SETLLs
attempted to access data past the highest key?  According to info I
received, this condition generates an exception, which may skew your results.

 -mark

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *