RE: Efficiency question on file extents...

I don't think you'll save that much time by setting the size values. Building the views/indexes/logical files over a physical file will consume much of the conversion time if not most.

Back in the dim past I did a conversion speed study comparing CPYF using *MAP *DROP against a program that read a file and wrote a record to the new file. Surprisingly, the program method was actually substantially faster. Things may have changed now though.

Gary Monnier


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of sjl
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:30 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Efficiency question on file extents...

I have a very long-running conversion job stream which we are about to kick off, and I'm wondering if it will save time if I change the PF's to have an initial size that is at least as large as the number of records that I know will be written to each file.

For example, I have an address master file named ADDRESSES which ended up with almost 500,000 records during the last conversion.

Will it save much time if I do CHGPF(ADDRESSES) SIZE(500000 10000 100)
ALLOCATE(*YES) so that it will have an initial allocation of 500,000 records once it is cleared, instead of letting it default to SIZE(100000 10000 100) and the system having to do extents on it once it hit the maximum size of
100,000 records?

Regards,
sjl

--
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.