RE: Triggers, Activation Groups, Performance

["Stone, Brad V (TC)" <bvstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe,

I think you're on the right track.  Traditionally (before the introduction
of AGs) leaving LR off would speed up subsequent calls to a program within a
job.  Now, with you using named AGs, you're correct in that all the cleanup
is not done.  

>From what I understand, though, you are really dealing with two "levels" of
cleanup when dealing with setting on LR and reclaiming eligible activation
groups.  In other words, LR does some cleanup, and reclaiming an AG does
even more.  But the cleanup that reclaiming the AG does really should be of
little or no consequence.  Using the same AG should be quicker (after the AG
is created for the job) when calling jobs, but then again leavin LR on
should speed things up even more.

If you were to have your trigger program run in a unique AG, and you wanted
to reclaim the AG after every call, I think you would actually see a
decrease in performance since the unique AG (for example using *NEW) would
have to be created, and then when done, reclaimed.  In your instance,
reclaiming the AG is not an option since QILE AG is used for everything, and
therefore would not be eligible to be reclaimed.

What I would suggest for your trigger program is leaving LR off, and
compiling it to use AG *CALLER.  That way if you do start using AGs (more
than just QILE for everything) performance should be retained.

Bradley V. Stone
Taylor Corporation - OASIS Programmer/Analyst   
bvstone@taylorcorp.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Teff [SMTP:jteff19@idt.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:50 AM
> To:   Midrange Dot Com
> Subject:      Triggers, Activation Groups, Performance
> 
> When I first started writing triggers, I assumed that the only way to get
> good performance was to leave LR off when I exited the program. All
> subsequent calls in that job would then use a program that was
> already loaded and initialized. I now understand that programs (PAG
> portion anyway) do not get cleaned up automatically when a program
> ends even with LR on. All subsequent calls to that program are faster
> because of the lack of cleanup for a named Activation Group.
> 
> As a rule, I use DFTACTGRP(*NO) and ACTGRP(QILE). Should I
> still leave LR off when I exit my program and code it to be re-enterable?
> Or can I seton LR and let the system handle re-initialization without
> any real penalty?
> 
> Joe Teff
> 
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
> MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
> david@midrange.com
> +---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---