>The real issue is inefficiency....each virtual field requires an >additional read from the dictionary in which it is located. Doing >this >for every item in a report, you can see where the overhead makes >chaining virtual fields inefficient.
I think that the above conjecture is probably wrong. I think if you generated (compiled) a compound dictionary (C) made up of dictionary A and B. Then you deleted dictionary A & B the compound dictionary, A, would still work (though would not recompile in the future). Thus, proving, there is no read at runtime of component dictionaries. Hence, it can be stated that there is no particular inefficiency caused by compounding dictionaries, other than the efficiency of the components themselves. In fact, there are some that would say that the construction of new , more complex, components from existing simpler components is something to be desired. Cheers, Stuart ********************************************************************** 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 viruses. ********************************************************************** ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
