RE: Bifs vs Indicators

["derhamj" <derhamj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Booth, can't do that because the file being read is under USROPN control so 
That it can be CLOSED and then reopened for the second read within a single
job.

Jack Derham

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Booth Martin
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 1:42 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: Bifs vs Indicators

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