|
Jim,Why did you switch this to MIDRANGE-L? Seems to me that it was on-topic for RPG400-L where it started. Why the switch?
Working with 249,271 records, the READE loop changed those records in 70 seconds (processor time). Working with the same number of records, using READ but leaving BLOCK as it's default - 72 seconds Working with the same number of records, using READ and adding BLOCK(*NO) - 72 seconds
Turning blocking off with BLOCK(*NO) is the wrong direction to go. The whole reason you want to use READ instead of READE is to make blocking possible to improve performance. Why would you specify BLOCK(*NO) that seems to defeat the purpose.
I'm guessing by your results that it was turned off by default (probably because it's an update file).
Here are some things I'd play with:a) Try doing the READ op-codes on a separate, read-only, file. Specify BLOCK(*YES) on that file.
b) Have a second copy of the file open to do the updates (assuming that they're going to the same file.)
c) Try using SETOBJACC to bring the file into memory. This'll speed up access to it.
I ran these benchmarks on our development machine, which has a fairly constant load. I was surprised READ didn't show me any advantage, even though many of you suggested that it would.
The only advantage to READ over READE is that READ uses blocking. When you turn off blocking, it won't improve performance!!
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.
midrange.com
