HP3000-L Archives

November 2001, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: COBOL
From:
"Shahan, Ray" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Shahan, Ray
Date:
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:06:54 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines) 
That's what I recall too...thanks everybody.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tracy Pierce [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:57 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: COBOL
>
> per my fuzzy memory, indexing is faster because the indices are stored as
> addresses, and incremented by sizeof(element), as opposed to not-indexed,
> in
> which case you manipulate your own integers, then convert to addresses as
> a
> result of dataname(subscript).  should be MUCH faster.
>
> Tracy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shahan, Ray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 10:56 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: COBOL
> >
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Does anyone know if there is any performance diff gained by
> > using INDEXED BY
> > over using a separate field as an index while accessing very
> > large arrays?
> >
> > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> > * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
> >
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2