Re: Improving SQL Update perfomance -- 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: Improving SQL Update perfomance
From: "Bill" <brobins3d@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:49:03 -0800
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>

Luis Rodriguez wrote:

In a (informal) test running in a old 270 (V5R3) I "shaved"
8 seconds updating a 168,000 records table (1 min. 46 secs
vs 1 min. 54 secs)

About 7%, so it's not insignificant.

I wonder if changing the order of operations would have any affect:

Update libname/table set field1=round(field1, -2) * .001

BTW, what is field1's data type and size?

Bill

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.