Re: *SQLPKG issue -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: *SQLPKG issue
From: Patrik Schindler <poc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 22:23:26 +0200
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello Rob,

Am 09.09.2021 um 20:13 schrieb Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx>:

The argument was to use static instead of dynamic as much as possible to shave a few microseconds off of the execution time.

Depending on machinery used, this can accumulate quickly to much more than a few microseconds. ;-)

But seriously… repetitive statements such als bulk inserts benefit greatly from dynamic SQL. And if it's not beneficial in execution time on the latest and greatest P9, then that the CPU might go into power save mode more quickly. Even this saves a few bucks over time.

Apparently IBM isn't aware that SQL packages are a frequent source of malfunction?

:wq! PoC

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.