Re: Timing of SAVLIB/RSTLIB vs CPYLIB -- 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.

CPYLIB uses CRTDUPOBJ for every object. It has to determine the correct order for object dependencies, then it uses CRTDUPOBJ on each. RSTLIB, esp. if you have saved access paths, will be faster, because the SAV/RST code path is optimized for throughput.

Vern

On 9/9/2010 7:52 PM, Lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Curiosity question.

Each night in the wee hours we create a test environment from a
production library, thus:
SAVLIB PROD01 to QTEMP/SAVF
CLRLIB TST01
RSTLIB QTEMPSAVF to TST01

It runs in about 41-45 minutes.

Last night I had to do a (occasional) copy of T01 to T02. I did this:
CLRLIB T02
CPYLIB T01 to T02

It took 45 minutes. I figured creating T02 this way would be quite a
bit faster than creating T01, but it wasn’t.

T01 was created about 3-3:45 am. T02 was created 4:30-5:15 am. There
is really nothing else running at these times.

Any thoughts on why the CPYLIB approach is not faster? CPYLIB did seem
to do a lot of index rebuilding (observed in a test during the day.)
Maybe SAVLIB/RSTLIB is smarter about indexes and/or does more in parallel.

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.