× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



It would interest me to know the answers to the same test if the file was set as input primary?


derhamj wrote:
Hi List,

Just to check timings I ran a small test to see if the use of %EOF bif with a read operation would be faster or slower then the use of the classic
indiactors.  I expected a nice clear black hat/white hat answer but alas the


V5R2 system that I ran on had to surprise me. When run as a batch job, the
Bifs

over an 8 million record file won hands down across various times an loads
of the work day. However when the same code was was run against the same file
interactively, the indicators won.  Don't understand. Could someone explain
this

to me. Time Slice for both batch and interactive was 500. Run priority for
Interactive was 20 and for Batch 50. Batch DWT was 120 and 30 for
Interactive.

I will continue to use the Bif syntax but it sure seems strange that the
same code
Would provide different results depending on the type of job.

Jack Derham


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.