RE: Subfile performance question

Jeff,

This might explain it. My experience is S/34, S/36, and AS/400 et al. I don't know what my coworkers experience is, maybe they started out on a S/38 and are remembering this situation. They did mention that they had been told this way back in the beginning and they have been around for a while.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Young
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:44 AM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: Subfile performance question

Rick,
A very loooooong time ago, back in the early days of the S/38 (yes, I was there on R0.5), the hardware was not fast enough to keep up with the OS functions. Among those was subfile processing. Back then, there was in fact a severe performance impact of letting the system handle any part of the roll function, so we coded it ourselves.
Today, using the proper type of subfile, there is no reason to not let the system handle at least the roll back function (provided that your prior data is static).
A load all subfile, where the system handles everything, is good when you have a limited amount of static data, and can get it to the user in a timely fashion.

Hope this trip back in memory lane helps.

Jeff Young
Sr. Programmer Analyst
IBM -e(logo) server Certified Systems Exper - iSeries Technical Solutions V5R2 IBM Certified Specialist- e(logo) server i5Series Technical Solutions Designer V5R3 IBM Certified Specialist- e(logo)server i5Series Technical Solutions Implementer V5R3

Privileged and Confidential. This e-mail, and any attachments there to, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by a return e-mail and delete this e-mail. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.