> Interestingly, it is worth noting that there are now numerous IBM z/OS > products that embrace sqlite, with some even integrating it with HLASM.
Hey David, Are you able to share the names of such products? Has zOS support been upstreamed to SQLite? I don't remember seeing anything.. - KB ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 5th, 2023 at 3:25 PM, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/6/2023 11:31 pm, René Jansen wrote: > > > What I remember of it is that he was convinced it was a lot slower. > > > He was mistaken! I've tested it out, and QSAM is no match for zFS. You > can find the details in this gist: > https://gist.github.com/daveyc/14b45d6d70d8dd9af1848e539d78881f. Adding > an fsync() call after writing each record barely incurs any overhead. > zFS, operating with highly optimized Media Manager APIs, handles it > efficiently. Additionally, zFS functions as a caching file system. > > I have observed a certain degree of snobbery among many traditionalists > when it comes to USS. I can recall an incident from approximately 15 > years ago when I advocated for the use of sqlite in one of our products. > My boss dismissed the idea, expressing concerns that customers might be > deterred by using the UNIX file system. Consequently, we opted for a > VSAM KSDS, despite its inherent limitations. Interestingly, it is worth > noting that there are now numerous IBM z/OS products that embrace > sqlite, with some even integrating it with HLASM. > > > So I told him that nobody forced him not to use QSAM for datasets just > > because it ran in USS. And it think that is a great asset of it. Just > > because Unix forces you to have a hierarchical directory system does not > > mean, in USS, that you need to use it for all I/O. > > > > René. > > > > > On 2 Jun 2023, at 17:03, Seymour J metzsme...@gmu.edu wrote: > > > > > > Dubbing is part of the setup overhead for a task, and only occurs once, > > > so except for very short tasks it is just noise in measuring performance. > > > > > > As for the general overhead of Unix System Services, the Devil is in the > > > details. For a comparison to be reasonable, the two programs have to be > > > using the services in a comparable fashion. Was your COBOL programmer > > > really comparing the overhead of conventional access methods to Unix file > > > I/O, or were the numbers drowned out by, e.g., differences in application > > > logic? > > > > > > -- > > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email tolists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
