Re: Record Length

[Jim Langston <jlangston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would say a longer record length and less records, because there
would actually be fewer reads if going through all the records.

That is just my understanding, though, as I have not done any tests
on this.

But it also seems to be that any logicals put over such a file would be
shorter by half also.  Which would save DASD and perhaps speed things
up a bit.

The question I have, is better for what?

Regards,

Jim Langston

Scott Swaim wrote:

> Is it better to have a shorter record length and more records
> or a longer record length and less records?
>
> ex:
>
> Rcd length =   80       # of rcds = 10,000 OR
> Rcd length = 160       # of rcds = 5,000
>
> Scott Swaim
> scott@qualitycorps.com
>
> +---
> | 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
> +---

+---
| 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
+---