Indexed PF vs. LF performance -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Indexed PF vs. LF performance
From: "Tim Adair" <tadair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:19:29 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

A colleague asked me about this and I haven't been able to find any definitive information.

For RPG (IV, but not ILE) doing CHAINs, SETLLs, and READs - which is faster, an indexed PF or a flat PF with an LF defined with the key? For the sake of this question, let's assume we're talking about a single key field. The file is DDS-defined, and must remain that way for now. And for this example we're not interested in rewriting the RPG using SQL.

We're on 7.1.

Thoughts please?

TIA.

~TA~

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Indexed PF vs. LF performance , Alan Campin
Re: Indexed PF vs. LF performance , Booth Martin
Re: Indexed PF vs. LF performance , John Yeung
RE: Indexed PF vs. LF performance , Paul Therrien
Re: Indexed PF vs. LF performance , Vernon Hamberg

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.