Re[2]: Efficiency of Bound vs. Dynamic Calls

     Seconded.  I would create a module with the date handling routines, 
     and create a service program from it.  For the OPM calls, create an 
     ILE RPG shell that accepts a PLIST, and calls the bound module from 
     the service program.
     
     I wrote a program a few months back that used a pre-existing utility 
     program (which pre-dated my involvement with the company).  My program 
     ran for about twelve hours on the first test.  I re-wrote the utility 
     as a service program (and optimised it a little), and got the runtime 
     down to thirty minutes.  For my money, that's worth _any_ extra 
     complication.
     
     ____________
     Paul Cunnane
     The Learning Company


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Efficiency of Bound vs. Dynamic Calls
Author:  Chris Bipes <ChrisB@Cross-check.com> at InterNet
Date:    08-09-99 3:56 pm


If it is an interactive job with one or two calls per transaction, makes 
little or no difference.  Batch job that call several times per record, for 
thousands of records, big difference.  Prototype the procedure and create a 
service program then bind it in, the difference is unbelievable.
     
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman.Rae@mckhboc.com [mailto:Norman.Rae@mckhboc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 11:19 AM
To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
Subject: Efficiency of Bound vs. Dynamic Calls
     
     
     
     
     
     
     Hello all
     
     I'm sure this issue has been covered here before, but as a newbie to 
     the list, I'd appreciate any help.
     
     At my current place of employment they have created an ILE-RPG program 
     to handle date manipulation, and standards state that this program 
     must be used or all date manipulations.
     
     From OPM programs (which most of them still are), a regular CALL with 
     parameter list is performed.  However I was surprised to see that in 
     new ILE-RPG programs, they were still using a regular CALL.
     
     I suggested that a CALLB (bound call) would be more efficient.  They 
     agreed, but stated that a dynamic call to an ILE program was quite 
     efficient, so much so that making it a bound call would not gain 
     enough to make it worth while dealing with the additional 
     complications that this would entail.
     
     This didn't seem right to me, but I don't have any information to back 
     me up.  Anyone got any thoughts on this matter?
     
     Thanks ....Norman
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---