Re: [WEB400] Serious speed issues...

["Brad Stone" <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> It is generally much more efficient there as well.

I'll wait to hear from Hans on this one.  And I'm not using
32k fields which you are doing your comparison against..
they are 1024.

I know that using CHECKR on a 32k field is terrible slow..
Normally the "chunks" of data that are written don't need to
be 32k.  CGIDEV2 uses this size because of how it works
compared to what I've suggested in my books.

>
> PS.  Brad - disagreeing with you doesn't constitute
> nit-picking.  It just
> means I disagree with you!

But you're disagreeing with something I didn't do... CHECKR
on a 1024 field will be 100 times faster than CHECKR on a
32k field, I agree.  But I didn't use 32k fields.  Don't
need to.

But, I still bet that the performance difference if looked
at the whole picture aren't that far off.  CHECKR,
%len(%trim()), or variable length fields using %len().
There is processing that needs to take place whether keeping
track of the length of the variable length field or figuring
the length of a standard field.  Hans.. help us out here.
:)

Brad
www.bvstools.com