Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett From: barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: ASCII & Binary sort (was: sort question ) Message-ID: <429@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Date: 22 May 89 19:40:52 GMT References: <199448@hrc.UUCP> <810056@hpsemc.HP.COM> <10289@smoke.BRL.MIL> <415@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1987@csuna.csun.edu> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 13 In-reply-to: abcscnge@csuna.csun.edu (Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl) In article <1987@csuna.csun.edu>, abcscnge@csuna (Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl) writes: > >Speed/size aren't that bad, IMHO. We wrote a test driver for an embedded >system. That used ASCII files, speed/size was OK. What about files that approach database sizes ( 100,000+ records)? It seems to me that when you are looking for all records where field 6 is between 9900 and 10700, converting an ASCII string into an int must be more expensive in CPU time than just storing the data in int form. -- Bruce G. Barnett a.k.a. uunet!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett barnett@crdgw1.UUCP