Re: [U2] Old Dog, New Tricks
Or just use $OPTIONS EXTRA.DELIM. This ensures that an empty element is still added with the correct delimiter. Brian In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes You can always test, IF TEMP = '' THEN TEMP = NULL and likewise on the end that processes after the ARRAY is completed. 1~2~NULL~4~5~NULL~... on the receiving end would be IF ARRAYWHATEVER = NULL THEN ARRAYWHATEVER = If you're going to do that, use (I think) EREPLACE. I think it's that function, but there's certainly one to remove all occurrences of a particular text. The danger is that the letters NULL will be part of a value which then gets corrupted... I always did ARRAY := @FM : WHATEVER and then at the end did DEL ARRAY1 Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- 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] Old Dog, New Tricks
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes You can always test, IF TEMP = '' THEN TEMP = NULL and likewise on the end that processes after the ARRAY is completed. 1~2~NULL~4~5~NULL~... on the receiving end would be IF ARRAYWHATEVER = NULL THEN ARRAYWHATEVER = If you're going to do that, use (I think) EREPLACE. I think it's that function, but there's certainly one to remove all occurrences of a particular text. The danger is that the letters NULL will be part of a value which then gets corrupted... I always did ARRAY := @FM : WHATEVER and then at the end did DEL ARRAY1 Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Old Dog, New Tricks
Interesting concept, putting the delimiter in the 1 position then deleting it. Makes the IF within the LOOP not needed. - Original Message - From: Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [U2] Old Dog, New Tricks In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Allen E. Elwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes You can always test, IF TEMP = '' THEN TEMP = NULL and likewise on the end that processes after the ARRAY is completed. 1~2~NULL~4~5~NULL~... on the receiving end would be IF ARRAYWHATEVER = NULL THEN ARRAYWHATEVER = If you're going to do that, use (I think) EREPLACE. I think it's that function, but there's certainly one to remove all occurrences of a particular text. The danger is that the letters NULL will be part of a value which then gets corrupted... I always did ARRAY := @FM : WHATEVER and then at the end did DEL ARRAY1 Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- 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] Old Dog, New Tricks
The only problem with using -1 is that it the value is null, it does not append it. This could cause problems, esp. when doing this with dependant rows. Program Example: 001 ARRAY = 002 FOR J = 1 TO 10 003IF (NOT(MOD(J,5))) THEN 004 TEMP = 005END ELSE 006 TEMP = J 007END 008ARRAY-1 = TEMP 009 NEXT J 010 CRT ARRAY Result: 1~2~3~4~6~7~8~9~ Regards Bjorn Behr --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Old Dog, New Tricks
In UniVerse, $OPTIONS EXTRA.DELIM - Original Message - From: Bjorn Behr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] Old Dog, New Tricks Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:47:32 +0200 The only problem with using -1 is that it the value is null, it does not append it. This could cause problems, esp. when doing this with dependant rows. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] old dog, new tricks
raise() lower() are your friends -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Ballinger Sent: March 8, 2007 9:10 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] old dog, new tricks snip / Also, I think UV is optimized for AMs vs VMs, so that it pays to CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX, do your thing, then CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX back when done if you need VMs. snip / /Scott Ballinger Pareto Corporation Edmonds WA USA 206 713 6006 --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] old dog, new tricks
Is the internal methods behind REMOVE the same as EXTRACT (or ). Again, about a year ago, I had an issue with an attributed xref rec of the invoices for a customer that had grown to almost 150,000 invoices. The original programmer used with a counter and it took very long to 'age' that cust on an inquiry screen. (don't solve my A/R problems). This was on a D3 box. So I utilized the REMOVE command and it went from around 3 minutes to around 15 seconds. BTW. To use REMOVE on D3, you need the OPTION $EXT command earlier. I'm gonna try your LEN vs # to see if that makes sense. As an experienced programmer though, I would have to see if it really matters on regular small values instead of these monster values. I've used # a zillion times. Thanks Mark johnson - Original Message - From: Stevenson, Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:48 AM Subject: RE: [U2] old dog, new tricks To add to Adrian's explanation, when a string is in memory, the first few bytes at that string's address is not actual data, but metadata about the string, including its length, so UV immediately knows where the string ends ( where the next string begins). Therefore -1 can make an immediate jump, rather than searching through the string counting attributes. This also implies that something like IF LEN( X ) THEN is faster than something like IF (X # '') THEN . You can also see why n,-1 n,m,-1 aren't particularly fast, since they aren't at the end of the srting. UV keeps similar metadata up front about the last attribute accessed, the remove pointer. That is what makes both REMOVE/REVREMOVE and EXTRACTs of sequential ns so fast. cds --- 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] Old Dog, New Tricks
I've run into many sets of dissyncronized mv values because of this. Thus, my brain now forces me to do a DCOUNT of the independent attribute to get the current number of values and increment from there. I've even seen this code X1,-1=CHAR(253):FRED that really screwed things up. No excuse for using a delimiter when delimiters are implied. My 1 cent Mark Johnson - Original Message - From: Bjorn Behr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:47 AM Subject: [U2] Old Dog, New Tricks The only problem with using -1 is that it the value is null, it does not append it. This could cause problems, esp. when doing this with dependant rows. Program Example: 001 ARRAY = 002 FOR J = 1 TO 10 003IF (NOT(MOD(J,5))) THEN 004 TEMP = 005END ELSE 006 TEMP = J 007END 008ARRAY-1 = TEMP 009 NEXT J 010 CRT ARRAY Result: 1~2~3~4~6~7~8~9~ Regards Bjorn Behr --- 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] Old Dog, New Tricks
You can always test, IF TEMP = '' THEN TEMP = NULL and likewise on the end that processes after the ARRAY is completed. 1~2~NULL~4~5~NULL~... on the receiving end would be IF ARRAYWHATEVER = NULL THEN ARRAYWHATEVER = -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bjorn Behr Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 00:48 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] Old Dog, New Tricks The only problem with using -1 is that it the value is null, it does not append it. This could cause problems, esp. when doing this with dependant rows. Program Example: 001 ARRAY = 002 FOR J = 1 TO 10 003IF (NOT(MOD(J,5))) THEN 004 TEMP = 005END ELSE 006 TEMP = J 007END 008ARRAY-1 = TEMP 009 NEXT J 010 CRT ARRAY Result: 1~2~3~4~6~7~8~9~ Regards Bjorn Behr --- 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] old dog, new tricks
This is more of an old trick. The reason that -1 is so much faster is because using -1 just appends to an already existing string in memory. Where using n will cause an entirely new string to be created and the old one thrown away (to be eventually garbage collected). The process gets slower slower as each successive string becomes larger and larger. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Ballinger Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 11:10 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] old dog, new tricks Perhaps this is not a revelation to many of you, but I did not realize how _much_ faster it is to append items to a large array using -1 vs. an incrementing count, e.g. n. I was trying to speed up a program that builds large arrays, and changed to the -1 style append. Wow [can I say that? this is a linux box, not MS-Vista; is wow copyrighted yet?], huge improvement! (UV 10.1.4 pick flavor, intel cpu). Of course, when using -1 you need to check for nulls as appropriate, but even adding after adding code to test for and handle appending a null attribute this is still way faster. Also, I think UV is optimized for AMs vs VMs, so that it pays to CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX, do your thing, then CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX back when done if you need VMs. /Scott Ballinger Pareto Corporation Edmonds WA USA 206 713 6006 DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. This e-mail is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return e-mail immediately, and delete the e-mail and any attachments without using or disclosing the contents in any way. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, and do not represent those of this company unless this is clearly indicated. You should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This company accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage or loss resulting from the use of any attachments to this e-mail. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] old dog, new tricks
This review came up a year ago. -1 is an append on the attribute level. 1,-1 is not as effecient as it doesn't know that the record is only one attribute long. I don't know about U2, but if I detect a very large appended item, say over 30,000 attributes, I use a DIM array and a counter. This is for exporting HTML or large text files. If you have OSWRITESEQ (I forget what it's called), you can write appendingly. After all, what's the next step after building your large -1 array. My 1 cent Mark Johnson - Original Message - From: Womack, Adrian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: RE: [U2] old dog, new tricks This is more of an old trick. The reason that -1 is so much faster is because using -1 just appends to an already existing string in memory. Where using n will cause an entirely new string to be created and the old one thrown away (to be eventually garbage collected). The process gets slower slower as each successive string becomes larger and larger. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Ballinger Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 11:10 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] old dog, new tricks Perhaps this is not a revelation to many of you, but I did not realize how _much_ faster it is to append items to a large array using -1 vs. an incrementing count, e.g. n. I was trying to speed up a program that builds large arrays, and changed to the -1 style append. Wow [can I say that? this is a linux box, not MS-Vista; is wow copyrighted yet?], huge improvement! (UV 10.1.4 pick flavor, intel cpu). Of course, when using -1 you need to check for nulls as appropriate, but even adding after adding code to test for and handle appending a null attribute this is still way faster. Also, I think UV is optimized for AMs vs VMs, so that it pays to CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX, do your thing, then CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX back when done if you need VMs. /Scott Ballinger Pareto Corporation Edmonds WA USA 206 713 6006 DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. This e-mail is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return e-mail immediately, and delete the e-mail and any attachments without using or disclosing the contents in any way. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, and do not represent those of this company unless this is clearly indicated. You should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This company accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage or loss resulting from the use of any attachments to this e-mail. --- 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] old dog, new tricks
R77 dog better trick! I too have had to build large arrays for text files and on a U2 db I use the writeseq's. I have also used writev with a ,-1 this slows way down when are over 5000 atts, I think it gets hung up on all the writes, os I switched it one att line with the text and wrote it to a hashed file, I then used a qselect and a save list to resemble the rows, and a copy-list to move the record. 30,000 rows in a blink! My thinking was that the DC type file the frames are contiguous like cataloged programs and large saved lists these are also optimized. I think UD saves these in linked frames not contiguous files. But the copy list still works. I have use this method on 250,000+ line/row email spam lists to reduce a 6 hour process down to 16 minutes, including the dedup step. Regards, Dave Raven e Fax (815)4259364 P.O. Box 17811, Irvine CA 92623-7811 -- MAJ Programming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This review came up a year ago. -1 is an append on the attribute level. 1,-1 is not as efficient as it doesn't know that the record is only one attribute long. I don't know about U2, but if I detect a very large appended item, say over 30,000 attributes, I use a DIM array and a counter. This is for exporting HTML or large text files. If you have OSWRITESEQ (I forget what it's called), you can write appendingly. After all, what's the next step after building your large -1 array. My 1 cent Mark Johnson - Original Message - From: Womack, Adrian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: RE: [U2] old dog, new tricks This is more of an old trick. The reason that -1 is so much faster is because using -1 just appends to an already existing string in memory. Where using n will cause an entirely new string to be created and the old one thrown away (to be eventually garbage collected). The process gets slower slower as each successive string becomes larger and larger. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Ballinger Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 11:10 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] old dog, new tricks Perhaps this is not a revelation to many of you, but I did not realize how _much_ faster it is to append items to a large array using -1 vs. an incrementing count, e.g. n. I was trying to speed up a program that builds large arrays, and changed to the -1 style append. Wow [can I say that? this is a linux box, not MS-Vista; is wow copyrighted yet?], huge improvement! (UV 10.1.4 pick flavor, intel cpu). Of course, when using -1 you need to check for nulls as appropriate, but even adding after adding code to test for and handle appending a null attribute this is still way faster. Also, I think UV is optimized for AMs vs VMs, so that it pays to CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX, do your thing, then CONVERT @VM TO @AM IN XXX back when done if you need VMs. /Scott Ballinger Pareto Corporation Edmonds WA USA 206 713 6006 DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. This e-mail is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return e-mail immediately, and delete the e-mail and any attachments without using or disclosing the contents in any way. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, and do not represent those of this company unless this is clearly indicated. You should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This company accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage or loss resulting from the use of any attachments to this e-mail. --- 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] old dog, new tricks
To add to Adrian's explanation, when a string is in memory, the first few bytes at that string's address is not actual data, but metadata about the string, including its length, so UV immediately knows where the string ends ( where the next string begins). Therefore -1 can make an immediate jump, rather than searching through the string counting attributes. This also implies that something like IF LEN( X ) THEN is faster than something like IF (X # '') THEN . You can also see why n,-1 n,m,-1 aren't particularly fast, since they aren't at the end of the srting. UV keeps similar metadata up front about the last attribute accessed, the remove pointer. That is what makes both REMOVE/REVREMOVE and EXTRACTs of sequential ns so fast. cds --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
