× 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.



While not a direct answer to your exact question, I would strongly consider using USRIDX instead of a lookup array. It's more code (but only once, if done correctly), and will give you the efficiency you seek. However, I have never seen a performance comparison between %LOOKUP and User Index lookups.

My direct answer is that I'm not aware of any means of doing what you ask.
++
Dennis
++


Sent from my Galaxy tablet phone. Please excuse my brevity.
For any grammatic/spelling errors, there is no excuse.
++


"Kurt Anderson" <kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm trying to reduce some program I/O for program processing millions
of records. I've identified a file that I feel could be loaded into an
array instead of having the program chain out for every record.
Usually this file is between 100-1000 records. However one of our
clients has 20,000 records in the file. So before making the change, I
decided to do a little reading on %lookup, to make sure I'd be using it
correctly.
http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/ibmi/developer/rpg/iSeries-EXTRA--Look-Before-You--Lookup/

It turns out that I had misunderstood how to trigger the binary search
with a %lookup. I thought sorting the array was enough, however to get
the binary search one needs to explicitly specify Ascend or Descend on
the array.

So I went to add Ascend to a data structure array, and it won't let me:
D ds_Cust DS Qualified Inz Dim( 50000 ) Ascend
D Cust 3p 0
D Cycle 1a
Error: RNF3501E Keyword is not allowed for a data-structure
definition; keyword is ignored.

I tried adding the Ascend keyword to the subfield that I use in the
lookup, but it doesn't like that either (I wasn't expecting this to
work, but at this point I'm grasping at straws).

I suppose I could make these two fields their own arrays. Though I'm
not really a fan of that. I love using data structures to group
like-data together.

Is there any way to get the new data structure array lookups to use a
binary search?

Kurt Anderson
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
CustomCall Data Systems

--
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.