>Walter wrote:
 >Am I correct in my belief, based on admittedly limited observation, that
 >practically everybody always uses an "@;" list?  If so, is there any good
 >reason for this?  Is "@;" faster than "*;"?  If so, why?

The additional overhead of @ versus * lists, depends on the number of
items,
and the set/item security definitions. If you open with the creator password
or have a password/class on the 'write' side at the set level, then security
checking overhead is minimized. However if you have a password/class on the
'read' side at the set level,  then each item security definition must
be examined.

Generally, I have seen that the * list will translate to a 20% CPU
savings over
the @ list. The definitive performance answer can be arrived at using the
PROCTIME intrinsic. (see COBOL code below)

Logical TGIF^2,

Mike Hornsby
Beechglen
www.beechglen.com
513-922-0509




200-READ.
    CALL INTRINSIC "PROCTIME" GIVING BEFORE-TIME.

    CALL "DBGET" USING DBNAME, QUAL, M2,
         DBSTATUS, MASTER-KEY, DATA-BUFFER, DBDUMMY.

    IF DBSTAT <> 0 THEN PERFORM 910-FAULT.

    CALL INTRINSIC "PROCTIME" GIVING AFTER-TIME.

    SUBTRACT BEFORE-TIME FROM AFTER-TIME GIVING DELTA-TIME.
    ADD DELTA-TIME TO TOTAL-TIME.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *