[Fwd: Re: SETLL vs CHAIN performance comparisons]

[Neil Palmer <npalmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Another reply that seemed to get lost.
-- 
... Neil Palmer                                      AS/400~~~~~      
... NxTrend Technology - Canada      ____________          ___  ~     
... Markham,  Ontario,  Canada       |OOOOOOOOOO| ________  o|__||=   
... Phone: (905) 731-9000 x238       |__________|_|______|_|______)   
... url:http://www.nxtrend.com        oo      oo   oo  oo   OOOo=o\   
... mailto:npalmer@nxtrend.com     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

• Subject: Re: SETLL vs CHAIN performance comparisons
• From: Neil Palmer <npalmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:12:49 -0400
• Organization: NxTrend Technology - Canada

Steven Easton Mail wrote:
> 
> The order you ran these jobs may effect the timings.
> 
> The first time you run a job, it takes longer than the second time you run
> the same job.  The first time the records and indexes must be paged in.
> The second time, they are already in memory.
> 

Especially true of you have the 'Expert Cache' feature turned on for the
storage pool you job is running in (WRKSYSSTS, F11, Pagein option =
*CALC).

-- 
... Neil Palmer                                      AS/400~~~~~      
... NxTrend Technology - Canada      ____________          ___  ~     
... Markham,  Ontario,  Canada       |OOOOOOOOOO| ________  o|__||=   
... Phone: (905) 731-9000 x238       |__________|_|______|_|______)   
... url:http://www.nxtrend.com        oo      oo   oo  oo   OOOo=o\   
... mailto:npalmer@nxtrend.com     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---