> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Eric Spencer
>
> Why not just consider the generated "key" (time stamp) a "seed"
> If you detect that the generated key is a duplicate (when you do the
> read for upd, which you have to do anyway) just add a second (or
> less...) repeat read for upd until not dup then write the new record.
>
> No wait needed and "most" of the time you wont have a collision, if
you
> do it will resolve itself. This also solves the problem for future
> machines that will make our current time granularity seem large.
That scheme also consumes resources (notably CPU) non-productively,
though probably significantly less than the spin loop. Our unstated
objective is to minimize non-productive resource consumption, and
waiting for a timer to pop seems most efficient for that.
> If your "key" is formatted (i.e. mmddyyyyhhmmss) and not just a stck
> value then just convert it to STCK format before the add (in this case
> you have to add a second, or you'll end up with the same key) then
back
> to mmddyy... after... probably still way more efficient than a STIMER.
I suggested almost exactly that, about a decade ago: change the key
field from "human-readable" YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS to "raw" STCKE. "Too
much work" and similar "reasons" expressed eloquently by John McKown.
-jc-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
