I may be wrong, but I think they've made the URL syntax smarter because it sure is fast enough for me, even on fairly large log files.
~Roger On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:36 PM, J. Landman Gay <jac...@hyperactivesw.com> wrote: > 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
