×
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.
Lim Hock-Chai wrote:
This is probably a Barbara question. I wonder if there is performance
different between update with and without %fields()?
I haven't measured it, but I wouldn't expect much difference in
performance with and without %fields. %fields just reduces the movement
of data from some of the program variables to the I/O buffer. I suppose
if there were some huge fields, or a large number of date fields, it
might take a bit of time to move the fields to the I/O buffer, but
normally I would expect it to be a tiny fraction of the "real" update
operation.
An third possibility is to use a data structure result field for the
update. That would probably cost less than an ordinary update, but it
might be more or less than an update with %FIELDS, depending on how many
of the fields were specified in %FIELDS, and the nature of the fields.
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.
midrange.com
