COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: Pete Dashwood on 18 Sep 2007 21:48 "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message news:8sn0f35tq2j9hsrp75rulk5hsfksakvr8m(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" > <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > <snip> > Speed is the only reason for using indexes. No it isn't. Many posts here have shown a number of reasons why people use indexes. You are STILL stating what you stated before those posts. So, either, you cannot change your mind, or, you simply ignore what people say if it doesn't match your idea. Either way, it makes it pretty futile to respond to your posts, Robert. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Charles Hottel on 18 Sep 2007 21:55 "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:SIZHi.263081$VU2.141742(a)fe02.news.easynews.com... > "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message > news:8sn0f35tq2j9hsrp75rulk5hsfksakvr8m(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" >> <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> > <snip> >> Tell that to the people who use indexes because they THINK speed is a >> problem and indexes >> are a solution. Speed is the only reason for using indexes. >> > <sarcasm intended - generalization noted> > > Tell the people who use subsripts that they are NEVER faster ( although > they might be comparable)- to never use them over indices. Speed is the > only rason to use subscripts and that never is provided. > > -- > Bill Klein > wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com > > If the speeds are comparable then I don't understand what the argument is about. Why be for or against either, just use the one that fits your individual style. Well I remember it use to be that indexex were harder to find in a dump. I think I still have an atricle about how to locate them. But surely that is not relevant today. Robert sure knows how to stir up 'much ado about nothing'. Or is that 'doodoo'?
From: Richard on 19 Sep 2007 00:41 On Sep 19, 1:48 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > "Robert" <n...(a)e.mail> wrote in message > > news:8sn0f35tq2j9hsrp75rulk5hsfksakvr8m(a)4ax.com...> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" > > <chot...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Speed is the only reason for using indexes. > > No it isn't. Many posts here have shown a number of reasons why people use > indexes. You are STILL stating what you stated before those posts. > > So, either, you cannot change your mind, or, you simply ignore what people > say if it doesn't match your idea. Have you just noticed that ? It usually takes about three posting before Robert even notices disagreement, and a couple more before he sees that he was wrong, and then he tries to hide his mistake. > Either way, it makes it pretty futile to respond to your posts, Robert. That is deliberate. If you fail to respond (or not enough times) then Robert claims that he wins.
From: Richard on 19 Sep 2007 00:58 On Sep 19, 1:55 pm, "Charles Hottel" <chot...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > "William M. Klein" <wmkl...(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in messagenews:SIZHi.263081$VU2.141742(a)fe02.news.easynews.com... > > > > > "Robert" <n...(a)e.mail> wrote in message > >news:8sn0f35tq2j9hsrp75rulk5hsfksakvr8m(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" > >> <chot...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > <snip> > >> Tell that to the people who use indexes because they THINK speed is a > >> problem and indexes > >> are a solution. Speed is the only reason for using indexes. > > > <sarcasm intended - generalization noted> > > > Tell the people who use subsripts that they are NEVER faster ( although > > they might be comparable)- to never use them over indices. Speed is the > > only rason to use subscripts and that never is provided. > > > -- > > Bill Klein > > wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com > > If the speeds are comparable then I don't understand what the argument is > about. Why be for or against either, just use the one that fits your > individual style. Index use should give a compiler error if you use the wrong index for a table. Thus indexes are safer. > Well I remember it use to be that indexex were harder to find in a dump. I > think I still have an atricle about how to locate them. But surely that is > not relevant today. Robert sure knows how to stir up 'much ado about > nothing'. Or is that 'doodoo'? He simply wants to denigrate anyone that has given advice on Cobol so that he becomes the sole messiah of 'good cobol'.
From: Robert on 19 Sep 2007 05:45
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:58:41 -0700, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >On Sep 19, 1:55 pm, "Charles Hottel" <chot...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> "William M. Klein" <wmkl...(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in messagenews:SIZHi.263081$VU2.141742(a)fe02.news.easynews.com... >> >> >> >> > "Robert" <n...(a)e.mail> wrote in message >> >news:8sn0f35tq2j9hsrp75rulk5hsfksakvr8m(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" >> >> <chot...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> > <snip> >> >> Tell that to the people who use indexes because they THINK speed is a >> >> problem and indexes >> >> are a solution. Speed is the only reason for using indexes. >> >> > <sarcasm intended - generalization noted> >> >> > Tell the people who use subsripts that they are NEVER faster ( although >> > they might be comparable)- to never use them over indices. Speed is the >> > only rason to use subscripts and that never is provided. >> >> > -- >> > Bill Klein >> > wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com >> >> If the speeds are comparable then I don't understand what the argument is >> about. Why be for or against either, just use the one that fits your >> individual style. > >Index use should give a compiler error if you use the wrong index for >a table. Thus indexes are safer. Someone said you can use indexes defined on one table for another. Seems weird to me; I've never tried. >> Well I remember it use to be that indexex were harder to find in a dump. I >> think I still have an atricle about how to locate them. But surely that is >> not relevant today. Robert sure knows how to stir up 'much ado about >> nothing'. Or is that 'doodoo'? > > >He simply wants to denigrate anyone that has given advice on Cobol so >that he becomes the sole messiah of 'good cobol'. It's about time I got some recognition. All Hail!! |