Re: Expensive op codes

[boothm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Good point John.  How expensive is an opcode when  it is running in an 
interactive job?  When we are talking operator time vs. machine cycles, 
then operator time becomes paramount and machine cycles become nothing 
more than a trifling cost of production.  Using the subfile you mention is 
a good example.  If the operator uses the subfile all day long and there's 
only a couple of thousand records in it anyway, what the heck, load it 
first thing in the morning, take the three second hit, and then have it 
ready for instant use all through the shift.  On the other hand if it is 
6,000 records or more it can't be effectively scrolled as a subfile 
anyway, so why not go the fast route and load a page at a time, or find a 
way to divide it up usefully and fully load it? 




Please respond to RPG400-L@midrange.com
Sent by:        owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com
To:     RPG400-L <RPG400-L@midrange.com>
cc: 

Subject:        Re: Expensive op codes

>require fewer source statements unless there is solid evidence that it 
will
>noticeably impact performance.
>Peter Dow

>Which is faster,     ADD 1 X     or     EVAL X=X+1? 

Ya, and; 
And how does it chart against somebody (B.M?)   Loading 5,000 - 10,000 
data
base 
records into a subfile ???

What is the order of magnitude of difference ??

Or is it just   "Fly @#$% on a cannonball"  (Rural Southern colloquialism)
of a difference ?

John Carr
+---



+---
| 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
+---