|
Hello Buck, You wrote: >Good alternative. On S/38, monitoring for a failure was about 100 times >more expensive than the chain. I need to update my thinking. Exceptions are still expensive -- but like all things, expense is relative. In this case you are only testing for existence so the SETLL op-code and a test for %EQUAL will work without the overhead of CHAIN (i.e., copying data in to the program buffer) nor will SETLL 'corrupt' the buffer thus Rob's concern is satisfied. The old guideline of coding to the most expected behaviour still holds. If *THRESHOLD of my WRITEs will work then I should monitor for a WRITE failure (via indicator, %ERROR, %STATUS, or MONITOR). If *THRESHOLD of my WRITEs will fail (duplicate key etc.) then I should check before i write (via SETLL or CHAIN). The threshold value I use is between 2/3rds and 80% and I code accordingly. Regards, Simon Coulter. -------------------------------------------------------------------- FlyByNight Software AS/400 Technical Specialists http://www.flybynight.com.au/ Phone: +61 3 9419 0175 Mobile: +61 0411 091 400 /"\ Fax: +61 3 9419 0175 mailto: shc@flybynight.com.au \ / X ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail / \ --------------------------------------------------------------------
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.