Author: sergeyken
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:48 pm (GMT 5.5)
1. There are only two gaps in the whole record which are not used as join keys: bytes 100 to 101 (=2 bytes), and bytes 1485 to 1510 (=26 bytes)
It might give a minor performance improvement if all adjacent join keys were combined into three groups each considered as long join key:
2. A more significant improvement in performance might be expected only by providing at least one (better two) of input datasets to appear as pre-sorted before this join. Then extra keyword needs to be specified for the sorted field(s):
_________________
Tyrannosaurus-REXX
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:48 pm (GMT 5.5)
1. There are only two gaps in the whole record which are not used as join keys: bytes 100 to 101 (=2 bytes), and bytes 1485 to 1510 (=26 bytes)
It might give a minor performance improvement if all adjacent join keys were combined into three groups each considered as long join key:
| Code: |
| FIELDS=(1,99,A, 102,1362,A, 1511,113,A) |
2. A more significant improvement in performance might be expected only by providing at least one (better two) of input datasets to appear as pre-sorted before this join. Then extra keyword needs to be specified for the sorted field(s):
| Code: |
| FIELDS=(...........),SORTED |
_________________
Tyrannosaurus-REXX