Dave, Thanks for response. Just to be clear, I don't plan to do new development defining some files at *MAX1TB and others at *MAX4GB. All new files we create use the default *MAX1TB. I was more concerned about the situation where I have a PF with 27 existing LFs all with *MAX4GB and I create a new LF with *MAX1TB. The manual indicates that this will cause performance problems. If this is true, I want to change all my LF's to *MAX1TB immediately. If not, it becomes a lower priority project. Phil Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:58:49 -0500 From: David & Eileen Keck <email@example.com> Subject: Re: ACCPTHSIZ perfomance - *MAX1TB vs *MAX4GB To: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com A couple years back the firm I was with was testing JDE OneWorld, which was ODBC based. Due to multi-minute response times, possible performance adjustments were examined ... *MAX1TB was one of them. After changing the files related to the test (always all LF for a given PF) performance improved dramatically, though response time never became acceptable. After reading up on ACCPTHSIZ I changed all files in the system on a Sunday using a PDM user option (thousands of files, some over 100,000,000 records, about 70 Gig overall). OS/400 uses a different algorithm to access records when using MAX1TB vs *Max4GB. That algorithm is usually but not always faster. You asked about mixing *MAXxxx methods for LF's relating a common PF ... I can't see any reason to do that. -Dave K.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.