RE: Performance issue: open/read PF vs open/read SRCPF

Shouldn't be any difference. A physical file is a physical file. AS/400
source files are just a physical file with a field for sequence number and
change date. 

-- From here is just my rants. Nothing to do with your problem. --

Personal opinion is that this should not be true. Source should be stored in
some sort of system like WRKFLR (folders) with compression and so on but
that is not the way they did it. Of course, today it should all be moved to
IFS.

Just curious. Has anyone moved all their source to the IFS and don't use
AS/400 physical files?  

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Jin [mailto:brucej@mrc-productivity.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 12:35 PM
To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
Subject: Performance issue: open/read PF vs open/read SRCPF


 I wonder how much difference there is (in terms of performance) when I use
a physical file versus a source physical file. Assume I do OVRDBF, OPEN,
READ, CLOSE in RPG. The record lengths for both PF and SRCPF are the same.
The PF has only 1 or 2 fields in it. Both PF and SRCPF have 500 records.

Thanks



+---
| 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
+---
+---
| 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
+---