Hi,
I'm still wading my way through all my old programmes, but today had a real problem which took a fair amount of time to get to the bottom of.
I have a programme which buffered large numbers of small records from a file into memory, where it could then be dealt with far faster (I grabbed a single 13K lump of information rather than 1000 records of 13 bytes.) - this is all over a network, so the overhead for tiny records is massive.
My method for finding whether I needed to 'grab' another 1000 records information was using an integer division of the record number I was after by 1000 and then comparing that with LOC(FileNumber) - which in QBX returns the CURRENT record pointer.
In Powerbasic LOC returns the number for the NEXT record.
Looking through the documentation I see that LOC is due to be retired in favour of SEEK (which is fair enough, as currently they both do the same job), could I request that LOC be retained, but it regains compatibility with QBX?
Thanks, John
I'm still wading my way through all my old programmes, but today had a real problem which took a fair amount of time to get to the bottom of.
I have a programme which buffered large numbers of small records from a file into memory, where it could then be dealt with far faster (I grabbed a single 13K lump of information rather than 1000 records of 13 bytes.) - this is all over a network, so the overhead for tiny records is massive.
My method for finding whether I needed to 'grab' another 1000 records information was using an integer division of the record number I was after by 1000 and then comparing that with LOC(FileNumber) - which in QBX returns the CURRENT record pointer.
In Powerbasic LOC returns the number for the NEXT record.
Looking through the documentation I see that LOC is due to be retired in favour of SEEK (which is fair enough, as currently they both do the same job), could I request that LOC be retained, but it regains compatibility with QBX?
Thanks, John
Comment