Re: Any way to improve on CPYTOIMPF's speed?

Don't know if you got an satisfactory answer to this yet, but years ago, I had to do something like this, and wrote a generic utility using SQL embedded into RPG. It could convert any DBF into a CSV using SQL descriptors to determine the DBF field formats. Performed very nicely. That was long ago, so I no longer have access to the source. But I don't think it was particularly involved. I also created a copy from CSV using a similar technique. Both performed significantly better than the CPYxxSTMF commands.

Mark Murphy
Atlas Data Systems
mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/26/2017 12:45PM
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