Oddly enough I learned this back in the day on microdatas (I used to work for MCD in the late 1970's) and have been using it ever since.
I find it much easier to program than the OPEN/READ for the simple purposes. I'm obviously effeciency oriented and wouldn't OCONV more than 1 field. My brain detects the need for the second field and I program OPENs and READs. I spent 2 days with my MCD clients last week and it's getting painfully obvious how slow it is. The absense of indexing is perhaps the greatest loss. I have to be far more concerned for effeciency. On D3 and U2 systems, one doesn't have to be perfectly effecient. Before everyone gets on their soapbox and flames me for not being perfect, understand that people like me have lived on both sides, native and contemporary. The native systems never had the speed and were about 30% less on other advanced features. I can honestly say that upgrading to a faster box brings with it more application opportunites that may have been declined on the prior system. There are things you can do on a current system that would be a burden on an older system. But effecient methods brough forth from a system with less resources to a current system wins both times. I've not felt the delay during these past 25 years of using OCONV for single readv's, old or new systems. That's just my experience. Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [U2] Translate question > Glenn, > > Sorry, I missed that thread, but thank you for the information! > > Mark does not work solely on UV systems - he has a lot of older Microdata > sites, so the warning may still help him! > > Susan Lynch > F.W. Davison > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glenn Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:47 AM > Subject: RE: [U2] Translate question > > > > I believe this issue was addressed in a previous thread just last week > > - trans operations, whether with TRANS, XLATE, or Tfile conversion, > > utilize both a file and record cache to help alleviate these > > concerns. If you issue multiple statements against the same file > > and/or record, the open/read hit is only taken against the first > > statement. This does NOT alleviate the speed of field lookup > > traversal, only file/record open/reads.... > > > > In summary, the universe implementation is fairly efficient. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "Susan Lynch" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:28 AM > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [U2] Translate question > > > > Has the internal implementation of this changed, or is this still as > > horrifically inefficient as it was back in the Microdata days? Except > > in a > > condition where you were doing a READV from a file that was not > > otherwise > > read in a Basic program, this was always strongly discouraged - as I > > found > > out when I asked Jon Sisk about it at a convention, and he literally > > fell on > > the floor laughing that someone was actually using this syntax. At > > that > > time, Chandru Murthi got up and helped him answer (both were laughing) > > - > > this syntax actually did a file open and then a READV, so that if you > > use it > > for more than one field in a record, or for multiple reads on a file > > in a > > Basic program, the OPEN being repeated was a killer in terms of > > performance > > (our software vendor did both, constantly!) > > I am surprised that no other responders raised the efficiency issue! > > Susan Lynch > > F.W. Davison > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark Johnson" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 11:16 PM > > Subject: [U2] Translate question > > > I've always used the OCONV(ID,"TFILE;X;15;15") form for translates. > > What > > is > > > the difference between the first and second '15's. I've seen "X;;15" > > work > > and > > > "X;15" not work. > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > Mark Johnson > > > ------- > > > 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/ > ------- > 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/
