Re: Index read performance -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Index read performance
From: "Steve Landess" <sjl_abc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:36:01 -0600
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/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

"Vinay Gavankar" wrote:

Also, noticed that the READE operation has taken same amount of time in all
3 tests, and that time was slightly less than the base SETLL time ( about
1.97 ms).

So that should rule out other system activity, I would think.

Maybe one of the SETLL took all the additional time due to some disc issue??

Vinay -

You may already know this, but when you run this program with debug turned on, IBM i will make recommendations about any indexes needed to improve program performance...

Regards,
Steve

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Index read performance , Luis Rodriguez
Re: Index read performance , rob

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.