Re: More SQL UDF help

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

James,

I replied to your other thread...you don't need a cursor for this.
(Although according to this old article from Paul Conte, SELECT INTO
and using a cursor for a single record is about the same
http://systeminetwork.com/article/sql400-vs-rpg-iv-which-ones-faster)

The system will keep the access path open after the third (by default)
invocation of the UDF.

An external UDF that uses native RLA is probably going to be a bit
faster than the non-cursor SQL...I haven't benchmarked it
recently...it certainly used to be
(http://systeminetwork.com/article/opinions-regarding-sql-vs-rpg), but
depending on your OS level it's possible that the static SQL would be
just as fast.

Charles


On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:14 PM, James Lampert <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Another thing occurred to me: while this implementation is certainly a
> nice proof of concept, it opens and closes two cursors for every field
> it processes. And we could be calling it dozens of times per record,
> for hundreds of records.
>
> Now if I could implement something (even using native RLA instead of
> SQL for the lookups) that keeps persistent connections, that would be
> more efficient.
>
> --
> JHHL
> --
> 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.