Duh duh duh (slaps forehead). I missed the UD bit in the subject line. Apologies.
Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Leach > Sent: 15 March 2007 20:38 > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] CALL @progname > > David > > If you look at the MAP command, globally cataloged programs > keep track of the number of times they have been run since > being cataloged. That suggests that their headers are updated > when they are called, which would explain why they are slower. > > Normally UniVerse cached subroutine object in memory for > efficiency until you return to TCL. > > But I really don't understand why a function is slower. > Are you actually using a FUNCTION or a DEFFUN ...CALLING construct? > > Brian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David > > Wolverton > > Sent: 15 March 2007 17:50 > > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > > Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] CALL @progname > > > > Actually - I just ran a test, and was surprised somewhat: > > > > 1,000,000 Iterations of ways to do a call... > > > > CALL PROGNAME (direct) 7047 > > CALL *PROGNAME (global) 7766 > > CALL @PROGNAME (indirect) 6984 > > GOSUB (logic contained in-line) 1531 > > Call as Function 10203 > > > > I've rearranged the order the routines are called in, and > run the test > > suite over and over... The Indirect calls are CLEARLY > faster, with all > > numbers moving +/- 50, EXCEPT the indirect, which only > moved +/- 25 or > > so. > > > > Note that I set the @PROGNAME outside of the "call" loop - this was > > not testing how fast the system could set variables > > - just the difference on the 'calls'. If I include the > setting of the > > name WITHIN the loop, the indirect call went to 7290 or so -- the > > difference in the 'direct' call vs the 'indirect' call efficiency > > appears to be in the Variable handling! But both are still faster > > than use of Global catalogs. > > > > Anyone have a clue why the indirects are a hair faster? Or > am I just > > getting lucky over and over? I always thought they were slower as > > well! > > > > DW > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > David Murray > > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:32 AM > > > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > > > Subject: RE: [U2] [UD] CALL @progname > > > > > > David, > > > > > > @CALL's are very inefficient and slow. It would be worth > > doing a speed > > > test.> > > ------- > > 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/
