Re: random i/o and relative efficiency

[Pat Barber <MBOCEANSIDE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

david.kahn@gbwsh.mail.abb.com wrote:
> 
> Pat Barber <MBOCEANSIDE@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
> 
> >Large "random" files can really blaze with a binary search,BUT,
> >the file has to be in some order...which sort of defeats the random
> >concept... stick with keyed index files....
> 
> Pat,
> 
> Are you perhaps confusing "random" with "relative"? AIUI Joel's example
> _is_ with an indexed file. The choice is between:

Maybe I misread the note, but as a side note, there was and still is
a "random" file on the 400 which is accessed by relative record number
but proably not used by over 2 people in the whole world any more....
this was a carry over from long,long ago on the older 3/X boxes... but
as I said earlier, I could have misread the whole thing....
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---