Is it possible that that bucket size has been reduced for some reason on jBase 5??
I've not been paying complete attention to this thread but have you done a jstat before and after running jrf to see what it says?? Simon --------------------------------- Simon Verona Director Dealer Management Services Ltd Sent from my iPhone On 11 May 2009, at 19:42, Jim Idle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Christophe wrote: >> Hi Jim, >> >> Sorry I keyed the JBase 4 release incorrectly. Should be 4.1 (4.19) >> Patch 0758 >> >> We have had not problem with the jBase 4.1 (T24 R05) so far... We 've >> logged a call with Temenos to explain the suddent increase in Modulo >> with jBase 5.0. But they are advising us that JBase 5.0 is correct... >> Which I cannot believe... Still got the call opened. Thanks for your >> feedback. >> > Then I would ask them the following: > > 1) If jBASE 5 is correct here, then should not the entire prior base > be > patched to fix the previous jrf? > 2) Why is jBASE 5 correct in oversizing the file 3 or 4 times bigger > than it should be? > > I can only think that someone thought it a good idea to increase the > expansion margin by a factor of 3, which makes no sense. If this is > indeed what jrf on jBASE 5 should be saying, then the reason why needs > to be documented. Files that are too big are not generally a huge > overhead, but if you are doing SELECT and READNEXT a lot, then you > will > have a lot of empty buckets to traverse and a lot of wasted file cache > doing it. > > Jim > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Please read the posting guidelines at: http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE/web/Posting%20Guidelines IMPORTANT: Type T24: at the start of the subject line for questions specific to Globus/T24 To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
