I'm not sure I understand the objection to REXX for this purpose. Does "not the best" mean there are languages that can do IO faster? Maybe so, but it seems to me that what's more important than the IO is what's happening to the record while it is (so to speak) in the program's hands.
Don't get me wrong; I love computer languages and am never loath to learn a new one. But there are a few advantages to REXX that shouldn't be ignored. It's freely available to any TSO user. Lots of people know it, so if I write a tool in REXX there's still a chance of it being maintained after I leave. And, of course, it's really, really good at parsing, interpreting and munging character strings. If that's what he's trying to do with this 5M-record dataset, I wouldn't try to talk him out of it when the problem seems to be simply that he needs to do IO in smaller bits -- which you can do in REXX as well as any other language. --- Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313 /* Do not accustom yourself to consider debt only as an inconvenience. You will find it a calamity. -Samuel Johnson */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Itschak Mugzach Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 01:11 As Kolusu noted, Rexx is not the ideal solution for reading large files. However, you can read it as chanks and if you use PROF VARSTORAGE(HIGH), you'll potentially be able to read larger chanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
