> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Itschak Mugzach
>
> As expected, I believe. But did the second run was faster as the JVM
was
> loaded? What is the ratio?
Best I can recall, we compared the timings after the JVM was built
(first invocation of the Java txn took about 5 seconds; pretty much
sub-second after that). The COBOL was just enough faster to be
noticeable at the terminal. The txn retrieved and displayed one record
from a VSAM KSDS. Best recollection from TMON data is that the COBOL
ran about 20% - 30% faster than the Java.
-jc-
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Chase, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Itschak Mugzach
> > >
> > > I wonder if this was tested ever: same business logic in batch or
> > CICS. NO\o
> > > zAAP installed. Who is faster? and in case of zAAP?
> >
> > It's been a few months since we did an informal comparison, but on a
> > z9-BC without zAAP the CICS COBOL code was "noticeably" faster than
the
> > equivalent CICS Java code.
> >
> > -jc-
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN
INFO
> > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
> Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
