<*Chuckle*> Probably true about the bovine excrement, but it still has to be shown to be something that management would not want to step in.
Thanks for the grin that generated. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Has anyone measured CPU savings using external SORT's vs internal (COBOL) SORT's? <facetiously> Perhaps they should also look at removing all embedded SQL call into a pre-step to unload the required data to a temporary file, read it, write a new temporary output file, then have a post-step which loads the changed DB2 data back into the appropriate tables. That would also reduce the CPU usage (at least of the step in question), right? </facetiously> You've had a cattle stampede. I know because there is a lot of B.S. left behind. Or perhaps the idea came from a C programmer who thinks that COBOL is using something like C's built in qsort() function. -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
