Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)....
From: Robert Wagner (spamblocker-robert_at_wagner.net)
Date: 12/01/04
- Next message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Is COMP ITEMS BETTER THAN COMP3 ITEMS IN MEMORY USAGE?"
- Next in thread: Howard Brazee: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Reply: Howard Brazee: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Maybe reply: LX-i: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:17:11 GMT
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:22:32 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>
>On 29-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>> That was in the '80s, when machines still needed our help. Concern for
>> performance today is almost always counter-productive, especially when
>> done in advance. Manual tuning should only be done AFTER a bottleneck
>> has been seen and measured.
>
>Part of the initial design should be concerned with efficiency. How you access
>the data can make huge differences, especially when you need to lock some up for
>update.
>
>How is this counter-productive?
It's the last gasp of mainframers trying to hold onto their
priesthood.
Modern databases are more efficient than a hand-tuned system. Why?
Because they parallellism.
- Next message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Is COMP ITEMS BETTER THAN COMP3 ITEMS IN MEMORY USAGE?"
- Next in thread: Howard Brazee: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Reply: Howard Brazee: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Maybe reply: LX-i: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|