Re: Should I replace all CHAIN, SETLL, and READs to SQL -- RPG400-L

× 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.

Subject: Re: Should I replace all CHAIN, SETLL, and READs to SQL
From: Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Did you benchmark SELECT COUNT(*) FROM XXXX WHERE..... ?

Yes, select count(*) into :found ... consumes a little bit more CPU than select 1 into :found ...

The nice thing about select count(*) is that if a record is NOT found, then "found" contains 0, whereas select 1 into :found always places 1 in found.

Again, if you want best performance, use SETLL to check for existence.

-Nathan

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Should I replace all CHAIN, SETLL, and READs to SQL , Alan Campin

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.