Re: SQL problem -- batch vs. interactive -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: SQL problem -- batch vs. interactive
From: R Bruce Hoffman <bruce.hoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 20 Apr 2004 14:12:46 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 20:31, Pete Hall wrote:
> plan. In my experience, it's always been exactly the opposite. Interactive 
> always seems to take much longer than batch. Maybe because of the 
> interactive CPW penalty I suppose. I'd guess IBM would be interested in 

the general reason that interactive usually takes longer than batch, is that 
the interactive is always dynamic execution, but compiled in is static 
execution.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.