× 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.



Mark,

I don't have the test programs anymore.

They were simple enough, as mentioned the called program simply
returned with LR = *OFF.

Feel free to recreate them, run the test yourself and post the programs.

Charles

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Mark S. Waterbury
<mark.s.waterbury@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Charles:

Why not post your test programs on code.midrange.com and then post a
link to them on this list, in case anyone else wants to run the tests?
After all, performance will be rather different on each unique hardware
model, and if LPARs are involved, etc., and that way, people can see
what the "real" nunbers are on their particular hardware configuration.

Thanks,

Mark S. Waterbury

 > Charles Wilt wrote:
Simon,

Where's what I had...
                                  #Iterations
                                    5M    50M
OPM calling OPM            6s    62s
Dynamic Program Call      12s   122s
Bound Procedure               1s     4s


In the first case, an RPG III *PGM was calling another RPG III *PGM
(which returned with LR = *OFF).
In the second case, an RPG IV *PGM was calling another RPG IV *PGM
(which returned with LR = *OFF).
In the third, an RPG IV *PGM was calling a RPG IV procedure in a *SRVPGM.

Both called programs and the called procedure simply RETURN.

I was going to check to see how much of the 12s was from the dynamic
call vs. the RPG cycle, by replacing the called RPG program with an
ILE C program, but the system I was testing on, a 515 running v5r4,
didn't have the C compiler installed.

I'm a little surprise to see RPG III program calls performing better
than RPG IV program calls..  I thought perhaps it was activation group
related.  Initially, I had *NEW calling *CALLER.  I tried changing
both program to run in the same named activation group.  That had no
effect.  So I tried changing both to DFTACTGRP(*YES). That had a
little effect, lowering the times to 11s and 110s.

Charles

--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

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.