Re: Improving SQL Update perfomance

[Luis Rodriguez <luis.rodriguez2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

The times I posted are the average of about four runs. I
admit the 7% is not so significant. Nevertheless, the
difference is a lot more that I could have guessed.

The fields are either Numeric(15, 2) or Packed(15, 2).
Regarding your last suggestion, in this case the order DOES
matter:

Round( 8089.64 * 0.001, 2)  = 8.09000
Round( 8089.64, -2) * 0.001 = 8.10000


Best Regards,

Luis

--- midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> message: 1
> date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:49:03 -0800
> from: "Bill" <brobins3d@xxxxxxxxx>
> subject: Re: Improving SQL Update perfomance
>
> Luis Rodriguez wrote:
> > In a (informal) test running in a old 270 (V5R3) I
> "shaved"
> > 8 seconds updating a 168,000 records table (1 min. 46
> secs
> > vs 1 min. 54 secs)
>
> About 7%, so it's not insignificant.
>
> I wonder if changing the order of operations would have
> any affect:
>
> Update libname/table  set field1=round(field1, -2)  *
> .001
>
> BTW, what is field1's data type and size?
>
> Bill 


Luis Rodriguez

IBM Certified Systems Expert
eServer i5 iSeries Technical Solutions


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ