Re: SETLL vs CHAIN performance comparisons

[cmassoglia@xxxxxxxxxxx (Charlie Massoglia)]

> There's another factor to take into account.  How many of the SETLLs
>attempted to access data past the highest key?  According to info I
>received, this condition generates an exception, which may skew your results.
>
> -mark

It took 84 seconds to do 20,000 SETLL (10,000 each to *LOVAL and *HIVAL).
It took 82 seconds to do 20,000 SETLL (10,000 to a record slightly greater
than the first key and 10,000 to a record slightly less than the last key).

It seems there is a slight overhead in trying to position the cursor before
the first or after the last key.

Again, the differences between SETLL and CHAIN are so miniscule I use which
ever method is more in tune with your coding standards.


Charlie Massoglia, Massoglia Technical Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 1065, Okemos, MI 48854, USA
517-676-9700  Fax: 517-676-1006  EMAIL: cmassoglia@voyager.net


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *