is this true ? I have never experienced the slowdown of the initial "traversal" and can't see the need for it - this statement just uses a different select list other than zero. now if the question had been regarding SELECTV rather than SELECT, then I would agree.
Gerry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mats Carlid Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 06:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] Select Question I'm aware of two differences that may be of importance - if we're speaking uv - The LIST alternative is immune to a secondary select inside the loop - possibly well hidden in an itype in a subroutine of an subr.... The bare select lets the readnext loop start emediately and saves (probably) one traversal of the file. So yes You'd save overhead - lot's of wall clock time and io but probably not that much cpu. hth -- mats [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hi all, > >Can someone tell me the diference between the following two examples of >executing an external select? > >SELECT FILE TO LIST >LOOP > READNEXT ID FROM LIST ELSE ID = @AM >UNTIL ID = @AM DO >REPEAT > >SELECT FILE >LOOP > READNEXT ID ELSE ID = @AM >UNTIL ID = @AM DO >REPEAT > >Someone pointed out to me that there is overhead in selecting to a list that I >need not be exposing myself to. Aren't they both kind of reading from a list >somewhere anyways? > >Thanks >------- >u2-users mailing list >[email protected] >To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
