I enjoyed reading that and wanted to say thank you. 

Rapid Application Development (RAD) does not have to be sloppy and quick. If
slowed down a touch it can start to include a touch of quality. Often RAD is
taken to mean "just get it done" when really it means "roll it out when it
can do the job" and "use prebuilt tools to do the job".

Applications that assist RAD can be bloating if used without a watchful eye.
Editing HTML in Word is a prime example of that. At the same rate writing
100 pages of HTML using nothing but Notepad is a waste of time.

Its all about balance.

Thank you again.


Ron Sharcott (3635)


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [U2] VOCLIB and keeping VOC entries Short and Small, IM & RM


In observing this thread the words 'page size' caught my eye.

In 1978 I remember a much older programmer working with me at Microdata
(sic) reading very closely the Basic compiler output generated with the MAP
option. Microdata's compiler didn't (doesn't) generate the necessary file
helpful with debugging programs automatically so you had to specify with the
(M option to generate it. It produced the variable table and laid out the
basic code lines as they were spread out over the object code record.

I recall him reviewing a FOR...NEXT loop that had the FOR part in one frame
and the NEXT part in another and he was spending time trying to put
compilable code (not comments) in front of the FOR section in the hope that
the both the FOR and NEXT were in the same frame. This may have had the
moniker "Frame Faulting". Mainframes called this a Core Dump.

So he would code and compile and review, code and compile and review until
he felt it was right.

Perhaps his age at the time (50?) indicated a respect for the incredibly
precious resources that he was used to and the disciplines that he had to
adhere to. In the last 28 years of my MV programming I have never recalled
having to be so anal as to perform such a lower-level observation for such
an unmeasurable improvement. I could never count the number of times I typed
the word "BASIC"

I don't advocate sloppy programming or poor file design techniques. But with
today's incredibly fast, fast, fast, fast and large, large, large systems, I
believe there is also an unmeasurable element to over analyzing the
tweaking.

While it's easy to take an academic approach to the micro-managing of each
CPU cycle and disc read, at some time it just really doesn't matter. Granted
if you create a file with a mod of 1 and try to cram 10 MB into it, the
system will accomodate this gross error and reward you with a slower file.

But if the file was created with a mod of 1001 (sic) and it should have been
1401 (sic), how measurably different is the delay with the 40% undersized
file of 1001? (PS for those who don't know, (sic) means example. Don't reply
with lessons on prime numbers. It's just an example).

I tried this years ago on a single user system (multiple user systems are
much harder to truly measure with the other user's affect). IIRC I had a
file that needed a 3001 (sic) modulo and I loaded it from tape into
different file sizes ranging from 11, 101, the calculated 3001 and even
15001. I performed some crude timing tests, ie sorting, read/re-write etc
and came away with the impression that it really doesn't matter unless it's
tremendously undersized. The 11 size file was the poorest but the 101, 501
and 15001 were suprisingly close to the 'preferred' 3001. IIRC even having
some non-prime modulos near 3001 and it didn't matter either.

I haven't tried this test recently but I can imagine that the results would
be quicker but the shot-group would be the same if not tighter. I don't know
about U2 systems, but D3 systems have long dropped the separation value in
creating files with the assumption of '1'. That closes that chapter on file
calculations.

I can't imagine justifying the process to analyze and re-analyze this today.
Perhaps I'm wrong and someone managing a 10,000 user system will babble
about every precious CPU. But for the rest of us it is an entertaining
distraction that would be hard to cost-justify. We don't have a 10 MB hard
drive system supporting 16 users with 32K of core memory anymore. Today's
numbers are downright staggering in the MV world.

My 101,1 cents
Mark Johnson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [U2] VOCLIB and keeping VOC entries Short and Small, IM & RM


> In message 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adrian 
> Merrall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> And on, and on, until the particular bit of data is found. So... 
> >> (this being one of the overwhelmingly elegant things about the
> >> Pickuverse) this means that in a properly sized hashed file NO 
> >> MATTER HOW BIG it only takes one disk read to get to any record 
> >> given a known key. Ask your local Oracle/Sybase/Informix/SQL Server 
> >> DBA if they can
do
> >> that. Stand back though, they tend to sputter alot.
> >
> >But won't this only work if your data fits into the modulo that 
> >matches your page size?  If your data is lumpy and doesn't nicely fit 
> >into the page size/file modulo selected you get level 1overflow and 
> >more disk IO.
> >
> The stats I've come across (yes, they're old, they came from Prime) 
> say that PROVIDED Adrian's "properly sized" caveat is followed, even 
> when you have level 1 overflow and lumpy data, your 1 merely increases 
> to an average of 1.05. In other words, 19 out of 20 attempts still hit 
> first time...
>
> 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
> [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/

Reply via email to