Richard, That's odd. I issue many SETS and the SESSION GLOBALV A file looks fine after. >From the book they both seem to append to this file.
Mike -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: January 18, 2008 1:31 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: GLOBALV question SETS updates the in-memory variable. PUTS does the same and also writes it to the SESSION GLOBALV file. Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Horlick, Michael > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:24 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: GLOBALV question > > I am a little confused in the difference between a SETS , for > example and a PUTS. > > My question is really about speed of retrieval. Is it faster > searching one group with many variables or have a group for > each variable with one variable per group? > > Thanks, > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris Buelens > Sent: January 18, 2008 12:41 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: GLOBALV question > > When using a single table, it is possible to set/get more > than one item in a single GLOBALV call (I don't know if that > would be useful for you). > GLOBALV SELECT PRT SETS A 198.10.10.10 B 198.10.10.11 > C 198.10.10.12 > > Faster due to the general rule: ask as much as possible in > one call, but it only works if the values to save are single words. > > Note too that GLOBALV PUTS would be slower, as here GLOBALV > has not only to be started, but it needs to call back to REXX > to obtain the variable contents. > > I also learned some day that the REXX interface (with the VALUE() > function) is faster than GLOBALV. I verified this once and > it is only true when GLOBALV is used to get/set a single variable. > > A last remark: do not use SET¨P/SETS/PUTP/PUTS when you don't > change the variable contents: the GLOBALV file on disk will > be updated in anyhow, even though it is not required.. > > 2008/1/18, Stracka, James (GTI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > I have no clue which would be faster. Perhaps Kris knows. > It does seem that option #2 is easier to code as you only > have one substitution variable instead of two for the GET. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Horlick, Michael > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:27 AM > > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > > Subject: GLOBALV question > > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > I am trying to create an associative array of some sort > that will be preserved across EXEC invocations. I thought > the best way of doing this is using the GLOBALV command. > > > > > > > > I have a list of printers and their IP addresses. For > example, printers A, B, C with IP addresses 198.10.10.10, > 198.10.10.11 and 198.10.10.12 respectively. > > > > > > > > Is it better to do a > > > > > > > > GLOBALV SELECT A SETS A 198.10.10.10 > > > > GLOBALV SELECT B SETS B 198.10.10.11 > > > > GLOBALV SELECT C SETS C 198.10.10.12 > > > > > > > > Or > > > > > > > > GLOBALV SELECT PRT SETS A 198.10.10.10 > > > > GLOBALV SELECT PRT SETS B 198.10.10.11 > > > > GLOBALV SELECT PRT SETS C 198.10.10.12 > > > > > > > > Is it faster to retrieve the IP address of printer X, if > it exists, for example, with the command 'GLOBALV SELECT X > GET X' or 'GLOBALV SELECT PRT GET X'? > > > > > > > > We are talking about 300 printers. Would it make a > difference either way? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Mike Horlick > > > > CGI Montreal > > ________________________________ > > > > > This message w/attachments (message) may be privileged, > confidential or proprietary, and if you are not an intended > recipient, please notify the sender, do not use or share it > and delete it. Unless specifically indicated, this message is > not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment > products or other financial product or service, an official > confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of > Merrill Lynch. Subject to applicable law, Merrill Lynch may > monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling > through its networks/systems. The laws of the country of each > sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be > archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the > country in which you are located. This message cannot be > guaranteed to be secure or error-free. This message is > subject to terms available at the following link: > http://www.ml.com/e-communications_terms/. By messaging with > Merrill Lynch you consent to the foregoing. > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Kris Buelens, > IBM Belgium, VM customer support >
