|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
nikyojin
New User
Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 94
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I need to know whether using Search/Search All keyword is in any way inefficient against using array logic linear comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phrzby Phil
Senior Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1042
Location: Richmond, Virginia
|
|
|
|
This is such an open-ended question.
Why not set up several good tests that somehow match your processing needs and let us know the results? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CICS Guy
Senior Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 2146
Location: At my coffee table
|
|
|
|
| nikyojin wrote: |
| I need to know whether using Search/Search All keyword is in any way inefficient against using array logic linear comparison. |
I would think that Search is an 'array logic linear comparison'....
Regarding Search All, I recall someone once said that the break even point was at some number of entries in the table. Above that number, All worked best and below that number, a straight search was best.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craq Giegerich
Senior Member
Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 1512
Location: Virginia, USA
|
|
|
|
| Also if you write your own search logic someone has to maintain it. Since you would be writing in COBOL it would be difficult to write code that would be more efficient then the compiler produces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill O'Boyle
CICS Moderator
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 2501
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
|
|
|
|
IMHO, greater than 128 sorted table-entries would warrant SEARCH ALL usage, which (under the covers), causes a BALR to the associated COBOL run-time routine.
Otherwise, for a straight/sequential SEARCH, the compiler will usually generate in-line code, without issuing a BALR.
HTH....
Regards,
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nikyojin
New User
Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 94
|
|
|
|
| Thanks for all ur replies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
