On Wed, 22 May 2013 05:02:09 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > > at 10:35 AM, Paul Gilmartin said: > >>I should confess (or at least clarify) that my tests were Rexx-based > >Using what interface? > It was a while back, though the code might still be around somewhere. From memory:
SYSCALL for the UNIX files; BPXWDYN/EXECIO for the legacy. I would probably have done better with ISPF/LM, but for that I would have needed to use TSO. The demo was intended more to show the cost of ALLOCATE/ OPEN/CLOSE/FREE than to find an optimum method. On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:11:00 +0200, Miklos Szigetvari wrote: > >Maybe some point: >- A few years ago in the OMVS newsgroup somebody pointed out that the >"fseek" "ftell" etc could decrease the performance very drastically >- If you need a random access maybe the VSAM would be an option > ftell() and fseek() are in the family of (somewhat) QSAM-like interfaces; tell() and seek() are relatively BSAM-like and might perform better for random access. I wonder whether these were UNIX or legacy files? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
