RE: SQL vs. traditional I/O?

[CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Joe,

Did you get rid of the open/close cursor and instead use just a "select *
into :myds"?

Charles


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:35 PM
> To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
> Subject: RE: SQL vs. traditional I/O?
> 
> 
> 
> One more result, and THIS is a stunner, folks.
> 
> I put in some more randomization - I allowed a starting record, so the
> program could work through multiple places in the file.  I then
> submitted 12 jobs simultaneously to read 25,000 records.   Results:
> 
> SQL took nearly three minutes (176 seconds) to complete all 12 jobs.
> The CPU was maxed the whole time.
> 
> The first run of RPG took only 26 seconds.  All twelve jobs finished
> faster than running ONE pass.  The second run took 20 
> seconds.  And now,
> no matter where I set the seed value, the RPG version is taking only
> seven to eight seconds for 100,000 records.
> 
> This is obviously a caching issue, but what's so cool is that with
> native I/O, caching from ONE job was obviously improving the 
> performance
> of the OTHER jobs.  And the caching was cumulative as you added more
> jobs.  No such luck for SQL.
> 
> Okay, enough.  Things to do, people to see.
> 
> Joe
> 
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion 
> (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>