Re: Setll vs. chain

 >>Am I wrong in assuming that SETLL will just look at the "index" which
 >>should be in memory as opposed to CHAIN which most often requires an
 >>access to disk to retrieve the record? TIA.

 >I belive you are correct.

I suspect the gain will not be that large (if any) considering the number of
misses you expect.  Unless the DB/2  implementation is really strange, it is
only going to look for the record when there is a hit on the index, and you need
it then anyway.

I think the only time this is worth doing is when you only want to know if the
record exists but _don't_ need the data. i.e. when doing a "does this customer
number exist" type of validation.


+---
| 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
+---