Of course I can't contemplate why anyone wants to keep so many source
files in a single file in the first place but that's just me - and
this is a problem even on more moderately sized lists.
I find that my list of members in a source physical file growing larger the
more I adopt modular practices. I would only expect them to grow in number.
How would they be separated out differently? Logically separate them into
differenlty named source physical files?
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jon Paris
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:14 PM
To: wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] WDSCI-L Digest, Vol 6, Issue 70
On 4-Feb-08, at 12:47 PM, wdsci-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Evidently PDM manages to do something under the covers that
allows it to get at a list of members much more quickly than DSPFD."
Well PDM doesn't have a lot of formatting to do and all it needs is a
list of names. DSPFD has to "dig deeper".
WDSC/RDi is still a huge disappointment in this regard. CODE/400
still outperforms it when it comes to retrieving lists. I guess part
of it is that once the data is received it has to be wrapped in XML
for storage. Or is the XML built on the host? In which case it may
well be Java performance on the host that is the issue.
There was also a problem a while back where IBM discovered the
algorithm used when searching cache was horribly inefficient when the
cache became large. That I believe was fixed - but is this possibly
related? In other words as the list gets really large the storage of
each new item becomes less and less efficient?
Of course I can't contemplate why anyone wants to keep so many source
files in a single file in the first place but that's just me - and
this is a problem even on more moderately sized lists.
Jon Paris
www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
midrange.com
