ibm midrange - Is CPYTOIMPF to qtemp faster than to other library? -


I am a programmer working on IBM AS-400V5R4. I create 2 CL programs, both of which use CPIO IMPF to format the AS 400 PF formatted demarcated files. The difference between them is: one formatted files in qtemp (pgm a), while the second one formats files in any library other than qtemp (pgm b).

I called 2 programs separately in 90 format, files with approximately 8 million records, both program consumes over 1300 CPU time, while PGM A is used to reduce CPU time from PGP to 5% Is about. I have tried many times and the result is similar.

Do I know why CPYTOIMPF is faster than qtemp second library, though there is a slight difference?

QTEMP and its contents are not required to survive more than the job life, Do not do things on the disc or it can be customized to reduce often, and the file changes can not be required to create file system transactions, because if the system becomes unchecked, QTEMP just blow away with the job

In addition to this, QTEMP is protected There is no need to worry about the control of the butter and object because it is private to the job.

These things, and so on, can gain access to QTEMP, less work is needed, a normal continuous library.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

c# - How to capture HTTP packet with SharpPcap -

php - Multiple Select with Explode: only returns the word "Array" -

php - jQuery AJAX Post not working -