Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO
From: Howard Brazee (howard_at_brazee.net)
Date: 01/02/04
- Next message: Charles Richmond: "Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4"
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Pierra: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:38:35 GMT
On 2-Jan-2004, Doug Scott <dwscott@ieee.org> wrote:
> > Batch is designed to do a lot of
> > processing at an instant in time. (sure it takes longer
> >
> I'm not sure it does. With batch, you usually don't journalise updates
> (you'd have a single dump/restore point for the entire batch run) so it
> ought to be a lot quicker if you're selecting by the same criteria.
It depends on how you measure. Taking 100 cars across the ocean in a cargo
ship is much slower than putting one car in an airplane and flying it across.
But taking 100 cars across the ocean with 100 airplane trips is probably slower
than the cargo ship.
The difference between batch and non-batch transactions is that in batch
transactions, you start a process and don't sit around waiting for a response.
You go ahead and do something else.
I can compile a program using a batch process, and I can do so using an on-line
process. They both take about the same time - sure this time is less than a
minute. But the batch compile is done in background, and I need to be notified
or to check to see when it is finished.
- Next message: Charles Richmond: "Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4"
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Pierra: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|