×
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.
I think direct IFS API's would be much faster for you.
I think this is the thread you're thinking of:
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/201701/msg00832.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan [mailto:dan27649@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:46 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Any way to improve on CPYTOIMPF's speed?
We have a process that copies 16.7M records from one native table to another in 13 minutes, then use CPYTOIMPF to convert this to a .CSV file, which takes 1 hour, 39 minutes. The command:
CpyToImpF FromFile(CSVWRK/&TC_IQXnnnH) +
ToStmF( '/csvwrk/' *cat &FileNamNoX *tcat '.csv' ) +
MbrOpt( *Replace ) StmfCCSID( *PCASCII ) +
RcdDlm( *CRLF ) RmvBlank( *Both ) +
OrderBy( IQXSequenc )
FWIW, this is on V7R1 with recent PTFs and TRs. The job shows the input file is being read in 117-record blocks. Record length is 239 bytes with
29 fields. I also tested the above command without the OrderBy parameter, but difference in time to complete was insignificant (2 minutes difference).
I thought I had seen a recent thread that claimed that one of Scott Klement's utilities performed faster than CPYTO???F (can't remember if it was CPYTOIMPF or CPYTOSTMF), but I came up empty searching for that thread. Does anyone remember, or was I imagining things?
- Dan
midrange.com
