Re: Improving SQL Update perfomance

Bill,

The times I posted are the average of about four runs. I
admit the 7% is not so significant. Nevertheless, the
difference is a lot more that I could have guessed.

The fields are either Numeric(15, 2) or Packed(15, 2).
Regarding your last suggestion, in this case the order DOES
matter:

Round( 8089.64 * 0.001, 2) = 8.09000
Round( 8089.64, -2) * 0.001 = 8.10000


Best Regards,

Luis

--- midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

message: 1
date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:49:03 -0800
from: "Bill" <brobins3d@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: Improving SQL Update perfomance

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

Luis Rodriguez

IBM Certified Systems Expert
eServer i5 iSeries Technical Solutions


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ