I'm not the team, but logic tells me that opening a file for append will always be faster and more efficient because the URL syntax works as a container, like a field or a variable. Every time you reference a URL, the entirety is read into RAM. I've always used "open for append" for that reason unless the file is known to be very small.
On January 25, 2016 9:49:57 AM CST, Richard Gaskin >my hunch is that using "open...for append" would be >slightly more efficient than "write...after", since the former takes >advantage of system calls optimized for logging. > >However, in your case you're using the URL syntax rather than >open/write/close, which leads me to a question for the dev team or >anyone who's had the opportunity to look at the relevant part of the >engine source: > >When using the statement above, is the engine clever enough to use an >append operation for that, or does it seek to the end of the file >before >writing? -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
