In message
<ba2f7087c5e55f4cb14ec12d9bee354501a20...@svr-email-1.civica.root.local>,
Edward Brown <[email protected]> writes
After indexing, we made a lot more use of the SETINDEX and READFWD
logic
in our programs.
I find this curious / disappointing - is it really the case that unidata
can't take the mix of indexed / unindexed dictionary items and do just
as efficient a job as the code you're writing?
Also, the performance of dynamic arrays need not be as much an issue as
you've found. If they're built up with -1 rather than a counter then the
speed penalty of adding items to a very large list is much the same as a
tiny one.
Is it?
Depends on how the memory is managed, but I understood that adding items
required a memcpy every now and then. The bigger your dynamic array, the
more expensive is the memcpy when it's required.
The only real issue with dynamic arrays is if the machine does not have
the physical memory available to hold the variable.
Been there, done that ... 32 users on a 16meg EXL 7330. It spent most of
its time in swap ...
(Finally talked the company into upgrading the ram when a 1meg stick
went bad. Bought 32meg for that machine, and used its 16 to upgrade the
other two machines to 24 each - Prime replaced the 1meg free as part of
the upgrade deal :-)
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]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
