On 2 Dec 2013 06:14:42 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Sorry about the late reply. > >The last time I seriously looked, the COBOL sort verb invoked the installation >sort (DFsort, SYNCSORT,....). > >The COBOL program effectively became the E15/E35 sort exits. > >On that basis, I would not expect any significant difference in CPU time >consumed, *AND* as someone previously noted, a possible significant increase >in elapsed time. > >HTH, > > ><snip> >It has been suggested to management here that there could be potentially >significant CPU savings from re-engineering application programs such that any >SORT's are done in a separate step, so that a program with a single internal >SORT would be broken up into a pre-SORT process followed by an external SORT >of the massaged data followed by a post-process of the SORTed data. ></snip>
While the sort products do more efficient I/O than the standard access methods, this advantage is lost because an extra file may be written for the sort to read. In the past the major saving by using stand alone sorts was due to main memory limitations. By giving more memory to the sort the number of intermediate passes could be reduced. In today's environment that normally is not a consideration. Clark Morris > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
