×
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.
Nathan,
Did you benchmark SELECT COUNT(*) FROM XXXX WHERE..... ?
I've found this much faster than SELECTing other ways for just checking a record's existence.
Trevor Briggs
Analyst/Programmer
Lincare, Inc.
(727) 431-1246
TBriggs2@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nathan Andelin
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 1:18 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: Should I replace all CHAIN, SETLL, and READs to SQL
How this would affect performance
There's a Linkedin discussion which kind of addresses this. I posted a couple benchmarks testing SETLL vs. sql select 1 into :found ... to check for existence of a record. SETLL was 4.5 times more efficient in one case, and 6.5 times more efficient in the other.
http://tinyurl.com/d62ptmc
We use both RLA and SQL extensively. SETLL and CHAIN perform significantly better than SQL SELECT ... INTO ... SQL performs better for most queries that generate significantly sized or summarized result sets, mass updates and mass deletes.
-Nathan
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
