I don't see this as misleading if anything it makes a simple list of a dictionary much more obvious as all D types for the same location are listed together as opposed to having to SEARCH the DICT for references hidden in I types. I can't speak to A or S types as I've never used them.
But to the point, the preference for D over I was performance, I-types take roughly 3.5x longer to execute that the corresponding D-type. On an older/slower box churning through very large amounts of data this can have an impact. I reran the timings since the original post on our current machines ( this process has been around for a few hardware/software generations ) and the 3.5x still holds but the overall impact has decreased to the point where this issue is pretty much moot. Gerry -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of jpb-u2ug Sent: February 8, 2010 05:59 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] extraction conversion codes I wonder the same thing. All he's doing is converting a D type to a correlative and in that case I would much rather have it an A or S type so you don't have to be misled by the type and not looking for the special coding in field 3. Jerry Banker -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Phillips Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:33 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] extraction conversion codes Hi Gerry, Out of curiosity, why are you against I-types? Martin Phillips Ladybridge Systems Ltd 17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton, NN4 6DB +44-(0)1604-709200 _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
