×
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.
These numbers seem reasonable to me. No surprises. However, I'd
caution against posting something like this because I have no doubt that
someone is going to make a bad decision because "OPM is faster" (which
is ridiculous -- the difference in performance here is something you'll
never notice!)
On 3/18/2010 7:37 AM, Charles Wilt wrote:
#Iterations
5M 50M
OPM calling OPM 6s 62s
Dynamic Program Call 12s 122s
Bound Procedure 1s 4s
Bear in mind that ILE programs have a PEP and a UEP. So when you call
an ILE program, it creates a call stack entry for the PEP (which is
generated by the OS) and then a call stack entry for the UEP (which is
your main procedure -- your code so to speak.)
By contrast, OPM doesn't have a PEP... you call the main procedure directly.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense for the OPM calls to be twice as fast,
all else being equal. One routine on the call stack vs. two routines in
the call stack.
But I hate to see someone post something like this. The performance you
posted will make ZERO difference to anyone. Really. 6 seconds over
FIFTY MILLION iterations? Who the hell cares? "I converted to ILE and
my 8-hour batch job now takes 6 seconds longer". Give me a break.
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
