×
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.
On 04-Apr-2012 20:22 , Nathan Andelin wrote:
We generally use RLA for single record I/O, and we generally use SQL
for set oriented I/O. Regarding the question of performance and
efficiency of RLA vs. SQL, what most people don't realize is that SQL
allocates large blocks of heap storage and often builds huge networks
of records in memory in order to perform well. <<SNIP>>
FWiW I think that descriptive contrast of resources for the SQL to
RLA ignores the the comparative intent; i.e. describes too generally the
SQL [set oriented], for the specifics of RLA [row oriented]. The
comparison was not for generic reporting for which the SQL would in
general prefer to make maximal use of available memory, but for single
row operations. If the SQL is told for example, that the intent is to
retrieve just one row [implied by the request, or OPTIMIZE FOR 1 ROW
[and perhaps FOR READ ONLY to ensure a read-only cursor], then the SQL
is not going to be [and I think the description is at some level
hyperbole:] allocating large blocks of storage and building those
so-called huge networks of rows in memory.
Regards, Chuck
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
