Re: CHAIN vs SETLL/READE -- 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: CHAIN vs SETLL/READE
From: CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:55:09 -0700
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 \(AS/400 and iSeries\)" <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>

On 14 Oct 2013 09:44, Vinay Gavankar wrote:

I know this has probably been hashed a lot of times, but which of
this is more efficient?

Doing a direct Chain or a SETLL and if %EQUAL doing a READE

I am accessing on a full unique key, but performing this millions of
times in a batch program.

Most of the times the record WILL be found.

Seems possibly, though inferred with a dearth of details, a task best deferred to the database [query] as an effective join.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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.