RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Goo'day, At 23:26 11/10/05 -0400, you wrote: I'm still trying to see how this is superior to a READ, which is entirely self-documenting and efficient, and doesn't require you to know about how TRANS behaves. I suspect that most programmers would have to look at the documentation or a help screen to know why you're doing a RAISE, and what the -1 and the 'x' are all about. Maybe I'm wrong about that. It's all neatly explained in HELP BASIC TRANS and I'd hazard that anybody that wanted to go down *that* road (the obfuscation path I'd call it) in their code would soon get used to t'syntax A line that starts out VAR= doesn't immediately say to me, here's where we're doing some I/O. If I'm searching a program for I/O statements, I'm not generally looking for something like this. There's also the overhead of doing the RAISE, which is only there to counteract the behavior of the TRANS. On small records this wouldn't be significant, but if you're processing many large records, it could make a difference. I'm not trying to be difficult here - I'm just trying to see the benefits of this alternative to a straightforward and standard approach. As far as I can see, the only benefit (???) *might* be that if the variable passed to a TRANS as the Item-ID for the file is a multi-valued list, the data returned is a list of fields for each item. This *might* have some benefit in timing. but for all I care, a READ is a READ is a READ (might even be a TRANS) regardless from whence it originates Hope I never get to having to squeeze the nth degree of timing out of anything I write. But, all that aside, I'm sure I can recall a UV support person (who shall remain nameless 'cos I can't remember who he/she is/was... Chris???. Trish??? - yep! that long ago) telling/advising that one shouldn't use TRANS for other than I-types... for some now obscure reason but I think slow was mentioned. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date: 11/10/05 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date: 11/10/05 Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURYNSW 2640 Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au Tel: +61 (0)411149636 Fax: +61 (0)260232119 If it ain't broke, fix it till it is! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date: 11/10/05 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Timothy Snyder Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:27 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS George Gallen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/11/2005 02:01:52 PM: Also, I don't use the OCONV() method with corelatives, I use the VAR=RAISE(TRANS(filename,itemname,-1,'x')), which is pretty self commenting, of course, that requires you to know what the TRANS() keyword does. As a replacment for OPEN/READ, no, TRANS is no benefit,but for a subroutine or a program that only needs to read a table or whatever 1 time during the execution of the program, then I don't see a problem with it. Again it's a keyword, thus documentation is in the book. Now if it were embedded in a block of code, you could comment the function of the block of code. but to document the TRANS itself would be like commenting a Do/While loop as ; * a do while loop (which to me makes a program longer and doesn't add anything). I'm not trying to be difficult here - I'm just trying to see the benefits of this alternative to a straightforward and standard approach. nothing difficult...to each their own. Where I have it in use is quite clear and quite maintainable. Tim Snyder George --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Timothy Snyder Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 5:21 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make it clear, Generally, when I use TRANS() in a program, I usually read the whole record, so it doesn't matter if later down the road someone needs another field. Also, I don't use the OCONV() method with corelatives, I use the VAR=RAISE(TRANS(filename,itemname,-1,'x')), which is pretty self commenting, of course, that requires you to know what the TRANS() keyword does. For me, the only time converting from TRANS to OPEN down the road is if someone needed to WRITE to the file, since you can't write data using the TRANS(), and I didn't see any compatible write keyword using the TRANS() format (aka, not having to open the file). George but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at the top of the program. Tim Snyder --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
George Gallen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/11/2005 02:01:52 PM: Also, I don't use the OCONV() method with corelatives, I use the VAR=RAISE(TRANS(filename,itemname,-1,'x')), which is pretty self commenting, of course, that requires you to know what the TRANS() keyword does. I'm still trying to see how this is superior to a READ, which is entirely self-documenting and efficient, and doesn't require you to know about how TRANS behaves. I suspect that most programmers would have to look at the documentation or a help screen to know why you're doing a RAISE, and what the -1 and the 'x' are all about. Maybe I'm wrong about that. A line that starts out VAR= doesn't immediately say to me, here's where we're doing some I/O. If I'm searching a program for I/O statements, I'm not generally looking for something like this. There's also the overhead of doing the RAISE, which is only there to counteract the behavior of the TRANS. On small records this wouldn't be significant, but if you're processing many large records, it could make a difference. I'm not trying to be difficult here - I'm just trying to see the benefits of this alternative to a straightforward and standard approach. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. UniVerse has many ways of doing things, some well and others not so well. I like you cannot se any benefit in using a TRANS... My 2 cents -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Snyder Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2005 4:46 p.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS George Gallen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/11/2005 02:01:52 PM: Also, I don't use the OCONV() method with corelatives, I use the VAR=RAISE(TRANS(filename,itemname,-1,'x')), which is pretty self commenting, of course, that requires you to know what the TRANS() keyword does. I'm still trying to see how this is superior to a READ, which is entirely self-documenting and efficient, and doesn't require you to know about how TRANS behaves. I suspect that most programmers would have to look at the documentation or a help screen to know why you're doing a RAISE, and what the -1 and the 'x' are all about. Maybe I'm wrong about that. A line that starts out VAR= doesn't immediately say to me, here's where we're doing some I/O. If I'm searching a program for I/O statements, I'm not generally looking for something like this. There's also the overhead of doing the RAISE, which is only there to counteract the behavior of the TRANS. On small records this wouldn't be significant, but if you're processing many large records, it could make a difference. I'm not trying to be difficult here - I'm just trying to see the benefits of this alternative to a straightforward and standard approach. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS + Vector
Wow, thanks! and caveat heeded. Vectorally (and RTFM) challenged, Stuart -Original Message- From: Stevenson, Charles Vectoring (is 'vector' a verb?) is built into TRANS already. No need to abandon in favour of OCONVS T-correlative. You can specify a dynamic array of IDs for the target file to read. I have used the Translate code with OCONVS() function when it is stylistically in keeping with the use of vector functions around it and only because there isn't a vector version of TRANS(), but personally I wouldn't use it outside of that situation. custProductIDs = splice(reuse(custId),'*',productIds) instead of / as well as this: prices = oconvs(custProductIDs,'TCUST.PRODUCT;X;;99') this works fine (even better I think): prices = TRANS( 'CUST.PRODUCT', custProductIDs, 99, 'X' ) But a caution: If CUST.PRODUCT 99 is multivalued /or sub-valued: * T-correlative converts all delimiters to spaces when OCONVS returns. (consistent with PICK.) * TRANS will lower the returned delimiters. (almost consistent with PI.) - if called from Retrieve, the delimiters are lowered enough to keep the association with the dict equivalent of custProductIDs which might be multi-SUB-valued or even have TMs or lower. - if called from Basic, not that smart, just lowered once, so you might lose the association with custProductIDs. The above for UV. Mileage for UD may vary. cds --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (+61 3 9269 7555) immediately, who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer related viruses. ** --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
That was the idea, but I wasn't discussing implememntation, only a technique that might solve the problem. -Keith Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allen E. Elwood Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:20 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Hey Keith, That's a really great idea, but why not just add it to the LOGIN paragraph? (it's in the VOC on Unidata systems) Then you won't have to stub the LOGTO command! Allen www.tortillafc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith W. Roberts Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:27 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Possible workaround? Whenever you LOGTO, do a LIST VOC SAMPLE 1 (HUSHed) to change the file and record pointers. -Keith Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Herbert Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS You are 100% correct and this is a known issue (to me anyways). The cache is only flushed when exiting the account or when you return back to TCL. Unfortunately, there is no direct way to call the internal transclear() function. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Our system has many accounts with, basically, the same file names, layouts, etc. We found a problem with using the translate rather than open/read in programs. If a program logs from account to account and accesses info with a trans, the trans doesn't always open and read the file in the new account's file, rather the trans retrieves the info from an earlier account. Am I right is supposing this phenomena is due to the file and record having the same ID and logging to another account doesn't flush the cache? Thanks, Bruce --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
I understood exactly what you were saying. The solution was for the case where the acct *wasn't* being exited and therefore @FILENAME, @RECORD, etc. not flushed. [Unless, of course, the cache you speak of is something specific to TRANS() rather than the above, but I can't see why that would be.] -Keith Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Herbert Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Why do you believe doing this (Logto followed by LIST VOC...) would work ( I don't think it will)? I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by exiting the account - that would be using QUIT. I guess I should have been more clear by saying quitting universe. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith W. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:27 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Possible workaround? Whenever you LOGTO, do a LIST VOC SAMPLE 1 (HUSHed) to change the file and record pointers. -Keith Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Herbert Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS You are 100% correct and this is a known issue (to me anyways). The cache is only flushed when exiting the account or when you return back to TCL. Unfortunately, there is no direct way to call the internal transclear() function. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Our system has many accounts with, basically, the same file names, layouts, etc. We found a problem with using the translate rather than open/read in programs. If a program logs from account to account and accesses info with a trans, the trans doesn't always open and read the file in the new account's file, rather the trans retrieves the info from an earlier account. Am I right is supposing this phenomena is due to the file and record having the same ID and logging to another account doesn't flush the cache? Thanks, Bruce --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Yep, I've recently went on several site visits to other Law Firms running two different billing packages on SQL Server. All 6 had converted from a UniVerse system running on HP-UX. All 6 mentioned the letdown of running a large query against their spanking new uber machines only to find they had a significant performance lag when compared to the ancient HP-UX machines running a very well designed UniVerse application. In the Oracle, SQL server, arena, performance problems are solved with the check book and more/faster hardware. On 10/7/05, Dan Fitzgerald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amen. Allow me to add that often the decision to replace an MV database with an RDBMS hinges on, what do you mean I need 5 times as much hardware/horsepower to run Oracle?. Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama When buying selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought sold are the legislators - P.J. O'Rourke Dan Fitzgerald From: Timothy Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:21:28 -0400 Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:53:47 PM: The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. ;-) Sometimes more powerful systems can make bottlenecks more prominent. Today's systems are expected to process more data in a shorter time, and to provide more functionality than in days of yore, so even minor inefficiencies are encountered over and over again. IMHO, there will always be room for efficient coding techniques. Some folks claim you have to sacrifice maintainability and readability for the sake of efficiency - I've rarely found that to be true. As long as you care about and consider both performance and maintainability as you develop code, it all just falls together. Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make it clear, but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at the top of the program. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Vectoring (is 'vector' a verb?) is built into TRANS already. No need to abandon in favour of OCONVS T-correlative. You can specify a dynamic array of IDs for the target file to read. I have used the Translate code with OCONVS() function when it is stylistically in keeping with the use of vector functions around it and only because there isn't a vector version of TRANS(), but personally I wouldn't use it outside of that situation. custProductIDs = splice(reuse(custId),'*',productIds) instead of / as well as this: prices = oconvs(custProductIDs,'TCUST.PRODUCT;X;;99') this works fine (even better I think): prices = TRANS( 'CUST.PRODUCT', custProductIDs, 99, 'X' ) But a caution: If CUST.PRODUCT 99 is multivalued /or sub-valued: * T-correlative converts all delimiters to spaces when OCONVS returns. (consistent with PICK.) * TRANS will lower the returned delimiters. (almost consistent with PI.) - if called from Retrieve, the delimiters are lowered enough to keep the association with the dict equivalent of custProductIDs which might be multi-SUB-valued or even have TMs or lower. - if called from Basic, not that smart, just lowered once, so you might lose the association with custProductIDs. The above for UV. Mileage for UD may vary. cds --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
In situations where there are multiple reads I usually just pass the whole @RECORD. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 21:52 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS I've actually run into a program with 10 READV's, some processing then 10 WRITEV's for the obvious same record in the same file. Is the OCONV(translate) function any more or less effecient in BASIC than in English (sic). I use them for simple validation or to retrieve one field with no side effects. If I need another field, I use OPEN and READ. Thanks Mark Johnson - Original Message - From: Timothy Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 5:21 PM Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:53:47 PM: The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. ;-) Sometimes more powerful systems can make bottlenecks more prominent. Today's systems are expected to process more data in a shorter time, and to provide more functionality than in days of yore, so even minor inefficiencies are encountered over and over again. IMHO, there will always be room for efficient coding techniques. Some folks claim you have to sacrifice maintainability and readability for the sake of efficiency - I've rarely found that to be true. As long as you care about and consider both performance and maintainability as you develop code, it all just falls together. Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make it clear, but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at the top of the program. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] OPEN vs. TRANS
Bob Woodward wrote: I believe, for the most part, you are correct, but doesn't TRANS also do some work with the system delimiters? Such as a LOWER() or RAISE() function on the data that is returned? TRANS does indeed return the field LOWER-ed. -- mats Something in the back of my head is hitting me on this but it may be if you're going to be accessing more than one field from the same record. In that case I'd always do an OPEN/READ, but I'd always try to limit the OPEN statement, especially if you're calling this subroutine from a DICT entry. Bob W --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
When I use TRANS in i-descriptors and I need more than one field, I grab the whole @RECORD, then EXTRACT multiple times. I'm not really a programmer (obviously), but wouldn't the same hold true in a program? ... One thing that kills me is seeing I-descriptors that do something like '... IF(TRANS(ORDERFILE,@ID,1,'X')) EQ '' THEN 'NO FIELD 1' ELSE TRANS(ORDERFILE,@ID,1,'X')...' -Original Message- From: Glenn Herbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:54 PM To: Hennessey, Mark F.; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS The vlist should show a call to Ftrans, which basically does an OPEN and a READ, and caches both for later reuse (subsequent reads on a file open'd earlier don't waste the time of the open). I also believe that the file cache is for 10 files, then the oldest gets closed, and the record cache is for 50 records between all open files. If you do multiple TRANS ops on the same file same record, but different fields, you only pay the cost of search for the field (assuming your file and record are still IN the cache!) Hope this helps Glenn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Our system has many accounts with, basically, the same file names, layouts, etc. We found a problem with using the translate rather than open/read in programs. If a program logs from account to account and accesses info with a trans, the trans doesn't always open and read the file in the new account's file, rather the trans retrieves the info from an earlier account. Am I right is supposing this phenomena is due to the file and record having the same ID and logging to another account doesn't flush the cache? Thanks, Bruce Bruce M Neylon Health Care Management Group Glenn Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/06/2005 07:53 PM Please respond to u2-users To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org cc: Subject:RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS The vlist should show a call to Ftrans, which basically does an OPEN and a READ, and caches both for later reuse (subsequent reads on a file open'd earlier don't waste the time of the open). I also believe that the file cache is for 10 files, then the oldest gets closed, and the record cache is for 50 records between all open files. If you do multiple TRANS ops on the same file same record, but different fields, you only pay the cost of search for the field (assuming your file and record are still IN the cache!) Hope this helps Glenn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
You are 100% correct and this is a known issue (to me anyways). The cache is only flushed when exiting the account or when you return back to TCL. Unfortunately, there is no direct way to call the internal transclear() function. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Our system has many accounts with, basically, the same file names, layouts, etc. We found a problem with using the translate rather than open/read in programs. If a program logs from account to account and accesses info with a trans, the trans doesn't always open and read the file in the new account's file, rather the trans retrieves the info from an earlier account. Am I right is supposing this phenomena is due to the file and record having the same ID and logging to another account doesn't flush the cache? Thanks, Bruce Bruce M Neylon Health Care Management Group Glenn Herbert Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/06/2005 07:53 PM Please respond to u2-users To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org cc: Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS The vlist should show a call to Ftrans, which basically does an OPEN and a READ, and caches both for later reuse (subsequent reads on a file open'd earlier don't waste the time of the open). I also believe that the file cache is for 10 files, then the oldest gets closed, and the record cache is for 50 records between all open files. If you do multiple TRANS ops on the same file same record, but different fields, you only pay the cost of search for the field (assuming your file and record are still IN the cache!) Hope this helps Glenn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Hey George, I've always established dict names using TRANS in the base file, and then created my SUBR type DICT and passed them that way. It just makes it *so* much easier to code, and have really never noticed any difference between the TRANS method or using OPEN and READS. Plus most of the times I was doing this my boss was charging the client 175 an hour and speed of programming was considered MUCH more important than speed of execution. The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! Like...systems will be accessing data at quad-terabytes per nanosecond over wireless photonic motherboards the size of a dime.you know? http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/dmlf.htm Allen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:11 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Is there any savings on using TRANS() vs an OPEN at the top and a READ in the program (Assuming I am only reading 1 record 1 time) This is using UV10 George --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Possible workaround? Whenever you LOGTO, do a LIST VOC SAMPLE 1 (HUSHed) to change the file and record pointers. -Keith Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Herbert Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS You are 100% correct and this is a known issue (to me anyways). The cache is only flushed when exiting the account or when you return back to TCL. Unfortunately, there is no direct way to call the internal transclear() function. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Our system has many accounts with, basically, the same file names, layouts, etc. We found a problem with using the translate rather than open/read in programs. If a program logs from account to account and accesses info with a trans, the trans doesn't always open and read the file in the new account's file, rather the trans retrieves the info from an earlier account. Am I right is supposing this phenomena is due to the file and record having the same ID and logging to another account doesn't flush the cache? Thanks, Bruce --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
hmm. The fact that the files are cached makes it nicer. I didn't want to use it inside a loop (TRANS() that is), and waste a lot of time with repeated OPEN/READs, in that case I'd have done an OPEN, then used READS. But if the OPEN is cached, great, it's just like doing the OPEN once. Since this application does not need to write, nor set locks, the TRANS may be a nice option. George -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Allen E. Elwood Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Hey George, I've always established dict names using TRANS in the base file, and then created my SUBR type DICT and passed them that way. It just makes it *so* much easier to code, and have really never noticed any difference between the TRANS method or using OPEN and READS. Plus most of the times I was doing this my boss was charging the client 175 an hour and speed of programming was considered MUCH more important than speed of execution. The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! Like...systems will be accessing data at quad-terabytes per nanosecond over wireless photonic motherboards the size of a dime.you know? http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/dmlf.htm Allen --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Hey Keith, That's a really great idea, but why not just add it to the LOGIN paragraph? (it's in the VOC on Unidata systems) Then you won't have to stub the LOGTO command! Allen www.tortillafc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith W. Roberts Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:27 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Possible workaround? Whenever you LOGTO, do a LIST VOC SAMPLE 1 (HUSHed) to change the file and record pointers. -Keith Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Herbert Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS You are 100% correct and this is a known issue (to me anyways). The cache is only flushed when exiting the account or when you return back to TCL. Unfortunately, there is no direct way to call the internal transclear() function. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Our system has many accounts with, basically, the same file names, layouts, etc. We found a problem with using the translate rather than open/read in programs. If a program logs from account to account and accesses info with a trans, the trans doesn't always open and read the file in the new account's file, rather the trans retrieves the info from an earlier account. Am I right is supposing this phenomena is due to the file and record having the same ID and logging to another account doesn't flush the cache? Thanks, Bruce --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Why do you believe doing this (Logto followed by LIST VOC...) would work ( I don't think it will)? I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by exiting the account - that would be using QUIT. I guess I should have been more clear by saying quitting universe. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith W. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:27 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Possible workaround? Whenever you LOGTO, do a LIST VOC SAMPLE 1 (HUSHed) to change the file and record pointers. -Keith Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Herbert Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS You are 100% correct and this is a known issue (to me anyways). The cache is only flushed when exiting the account or when you return back to TCL. Unfortunately, there is no direct way to call the internal transclear() function. __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Our system has many accounts with, basically, the same file names, layouts, etc. We found a problem with using the translate rather than open/read in programs. If a program logs from account to account and accesses info with a trans, the trans doesn't always open and read the file in the new account's file, rather the trans retrieves the info from an earlier account. Am I right is supposing this phenomena is due to the file and record having the same ID and logging to another account doesn't flush the cache? Thanks, Bruce --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:53:47 PM: The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. ;-) Sometimes more powerful systems can make bottlenecks more prominent. Today's systems are expected to process more data in a shorter time, and to provide more functionality than in days of yore, so even minor inefficiencies are encountered over and over again. IMHO, there will always be room for efficient coding techniques. Some folks claim you have to sacrifice maintainability and readability for the sake of efficiency - I've rarely found that to be true. As long as you care about and consider both performance and maintainability as you develop code, it all just falls together. Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make it clear, but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at the top of the program. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. Like I said, at 175 an hour the ***client*** preferred the quickest coding method. So sometimes you get the big bucks to save time in **programming**. (This was when my boss collected the money - I charge less now that I'm independent) And have you tested both methods to even see which is faster? I have and to tell the truth I could not see any difference in speed between opening the file and putting it in common and readv'ing the attributes and just using the TRANS'd code. I didn't use any fancy methods, just listed the file and saw that it apparently didn't make any visual difference in speed. Since Uniquery *is* opening the file and keeping it open internally, what *exactly* is the difference between letting the system do the work for you or doing the same thing in a program? Other questions: How often will this dict item be used in a report. Once a month? Ten times a day? These make the decision to code more efficiently an issue, or not. And after 31 years of programming, I only use one hand to type if the other has a big honkin chicken taco in it. Rest of the time I type at about 120wpm. Speaking of which, I forgot to finish my second tacoyum. Being independent, you have to listen to what the *client* wants. Do they need me to spend an additional 40 hours at $110 an hour to make something run faster? Most clients say N!! Allen www.tortillafc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Timothy Snyder Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 14:21 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:53:47 PM: The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. ;-) Sometimes more powerful systems can make bottlenecks more prominent. Today's systems are expected to process more data in a shorter time, and to provide more functionality than in days of yore, so even minor inefficiencies are encountered over and over again. IMHO, there will always be room for efficient coding techniques. Some folks claim you have to sacrifice maintainability and readability for the sake of efficiency - I've rarely found that to be true. As long as you care about and consider both performance and maintainability as you develop code, it all just falls together. Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make it clear, but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at the top of the program. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Amen. Allow me to add that often the decision to replace an MV database with an RDBMS hinges on, what do you mean I need 5 times as much hardware/horsepower to run Oracle?. Our greatest duty in this life is to help others. And please, if you can't help them, could you at least not hurt them? - H.H. the Dalai Lama When buying selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought sold are the legislators - P.J. O'Rourke Dan Fitzgerald From: Timothy Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:21:28 -0400 Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:53:47 PM: The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. ;-) Sometimes more powerful systems can make bottlenecks more prominent. Today's systems are expected to process more data in a shorter time, and to provide more functionality than in days of yore, so even minor inefficiencies are encountered over and over again. IMHO, there will always be room for efficient coding techniques. Some folks claim you have to sacrifice maintainability and readability for the sake of efficiency - I've rarely found that to be true. As long as you care about and consider both performance and maintainability as you develop code, it all just falls together. Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make it clear, but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at the top of the program. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Goo'day, At 14:50 07/10/05 -0700, you wrote: Being independent, you have to listen to what the *client* wants. Do they need me to spend an additional 40 hours at $110 an hour to make something run faster? Most clients say N!! My customers say it louder than that.. Allen www.tortillafc.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 07/10/05 Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURYNSW 2640 Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au Tel: +61 (0)411149636 Fax: +61 (0)260232119 If it ain't broke, fix it till it is! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 07/10/05 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Sometimes you have to educate your clients as to what they want. Larry Hiscock Western Computer Services -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Nichol Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:36 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Goo'day, At 14:50 07/10/05 -0700, you wrote: Being independent, you have to listen to what the *client* wants. Do they need me to spend an additional 40 hours at $110 an hour to make something run faster? Most clients say N!! My customers say it louder than that.. Allen www.tortillafc.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 07/10/05 Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURYNSW 2640 Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au Tel: +61 (0)411149636 Fax: +61 (0)260232119 If it ain't broke, fix it till it is! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 07/10/05 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
I agree. That's what we consultants are for. To help our clients make intelligent decisions. - Original Message - From: Larry Hiscock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 7:12 PM Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Sometimes you have to educate your clients as to what they want. Larry Hiscock Western Computer Services -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Nichol Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:36 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Goo'day, At 14:50 07/10/05 -0700, you wrote: Being independent, you have to listen to what the *client* wants. Do they need me to spend an additional 40 hours at $110 an hour to make something run faster? Most clients say N!! My customers say it louder than that.. Allen www.tortillafc.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 07/10/05 Regards, Bruce Nichol Talon Computer Services ALBURYNSW 2640 Australia http://www.taloncs.com.au Tel: +61 (0)411149636 Fax: +61 (0)260232119 If it ain't broke, fix it till it is! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 07/10/05 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
I've actually run into a program with 10 READV's, some processing then 10 WRITEV's for the obvious same record in the same file. Is the OCONV(translate) function any more or less effecient in BASIC than in English (sic). I use them for simple validation or to retrieve one field with no side effects. If I need another field, I use OPEN and READ. Thanks Mark Johnson - Original Message - From: Timothy Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 5:21 PM Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2005 12:53:47 PM: The way I look at it, when I started programming 30 years ago systems were millions of times slower, and in another 30 years they'll be so stinking fast that coding for speed will go the way of the Suchomimus and the Iguanodon! As long as programmers think that way, their employers will continue to pay people like me big bucks to come in and make the code more efficient. ;-) Sometimes more powerful systems can make bottlenecks more prominent. Today's systems are expected to process more data in a shorter time, and to provide more functionality than in days of yore, so even minor inefficiencies are encountered over and over again. IMHO, there will always be room for efficient coding techniques. Some folks claim you have to sacrifice maintainability and readability for the sake of efficiency - I've rarely found that to be true. As long as you care about and consider both performance and maintainability as you develop code, it all just falls together. Now, as to people who want to code one line instead of two (e.g.: the topic of this thread), I say take a touch typing course so you don't mind a few extra keystrokes. (I've always been amazed watching seasoned professionals using only one finger on each hand to write programs.) I would much rather inherit a program that does its own opens and reads instead of doing translates. Sooner or later somebody will want to get a second field from the record and you'll be faced with doing two translates or changing it to the way it should have been done in the first place. Plus, the OCONV with a translate isn't nearly as obvious to the casual observer of the code. Of course, you could put in some comments to make it clear, but those keystrokes could have been spent opening the file at the top of the program. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist , U2 Professional Services North American Lab Services DB2 Information Management, IBM Software Group 717-545-6403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] OPEN vs TRANS
Is there any savings on using TRANS() vs an OPEN at the top and a READ in the program (Assuming I am only reading 1 record 1 time) This is using UV10 George --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
The vlist should show a call to Ftrans, which basically does an OPEN and a READ, and caches both for later reuse (subsequent reads on a file open'd earlier don't waste the time of the open). I also believe that the file cache is for 10 files, then the oldest gets closed, and the record cache is for 50 records between all open files. If you do multiple TRANS ops on the same file same record, but different fields, you only pay the cost of search for the field (assuming your file and record are still IN the cache!) Hope this helps Glenn __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hennessey, Mark F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:55 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS I think you could test this by writing the code both ways, then doing a VLIST to see what actual basic object code would be. -Original Message- From: George Gallen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:11 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Is there any savings on using TRANS() vs an OPEN at the top and a READ in the program (Assuming I am only reading 1 record 1 time) This is using UV10 George --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS
The saving is in the typing that doesn't have to be done with an OPEN _blah READ _foo Vs the TRANS The COST of this saving may be in the readability of the code and long term maintenance. If you adopted TRANS as a standard then I'd say go for it - if not, why complicate your life (I believe if there were multiple file reads, then READ would outperform TRANS) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hennessey, Mark F. Sent: Friday, 7 October 2005 4:55 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS I think you could test this by writing the code both ways, then doing a VLIST to see what actual basic object code would be. -Original Message- From: George Gallen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:11 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Is there any savings on using TRANS() vs an OPEN at the top and a READ in the program (Assuming I am only reading 1 record 1 time) This is using UV10 George --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] OPEN vs. TRANS
I believe, for the most part, you are correct, but doesn't TRANS also do some work with the system delimiters? Such as a LOWER() or RAISE() function on the data that is returned? Something in the back of my head is hitting me on this but it may be if you're going to be accessing more than one field from the same record. In that case I'd always do an OPEN/READ, but I'd always try to limit the OPEN statement, especially if you're calling this subroutine from a DICT entry. Bob W -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Herbert Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS The vlist should show a call to Ftrans, which basically does an OPEN and a READ, and caches both for later reuse (subsequent reads on a file open'd earlier don't waste the time of the open). I also believe that the file cache is for 10 files, then the oldest gets closed, and the record cache is for 50 records between all open files. If you do multiple TRANS ops on the same file same record, but different fields, you only pay the cost of search for the field (assuming your file and record are still IN the cache!) Hope this helps Glenn __ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hennessey, Mark F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:55 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS I think you could test this by writing the code both ways, then doing a VLIST to see what actual basic object code would be. -Original Message- From: George Gallen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:11 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] OPEN vs TRANS Is there any savings on using TRANS() vs an OPEN at the top and a READ in the program (Assuming I am only reading 1 record 1 time) This is using UV10 George --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
