[AccessD] Long vs. Integer WAS: Global Variables

my figures on a P4 1.6ghz pc (win2k sp4)
16bit No Array 7609
16bit Array 16750
32bit No Array 5297
32bit Array 20891

On 5/18/05, DWUTKA at marlow.com <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote:
> 
> True, I found the difference in Access pretty odd too. Go figure. I
> definitely have to move my Integer 'bad practice' to strictly VB. I was
> just assuming that it would be applicable in Access too...but I never 
> tested
> it in Access, since VBA is a subset of VB. I tend to do my more math
> intense stuff in VB though....
> 
> That's what I get for assuming....
> 
> Drew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Barabash [mailto:BBarabash at tappeconstruction.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:23 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Long vs. Integer WAS: Global Variables
> 
> > I ran it in debug in VB
> Are you aware that this is an Access list? ;-)
> 
> Looks like the VB compiler has some tricks to optimize 32-bit integers.
> What's interesting is that the complete opposite is true when this is
> done in Access.
> 
> Either way, I don't think it will cause anyone on the list to refactor
> their code to squeeze out a few extra ticks of performance.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
> DWUTKA at marlow.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:57 PM
> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Long vs. Integer WAS: Global Variables
> 
> I ran it in debug in VB, and got only a slight variation....Longs being
> slightly faster. However, your code compiled produced:
> 
> 3405 ticks (integer)
> 2193 ticks (Long)
> 
> (Repeated runs get close to the same)...
> 
> Drew
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
> The information in this email may contain confidential information that
> is legally privileged. The information is only for the use of the intended
> recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the
> taking
> of any action in regard to the content of this email is strictly 
> prohibited.
> If
> transmission is incorrect, unclear, or incomplete, please notify the 
> sender
> immediately. The authorized recipient(s) of this information is/are
> prohibited
> from disclosing this information to any other party and is/are required to
> destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled.
> 
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
> states them to be the views of Tappe Construction Co.
> 
> This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned
> for the presence of computer viruses.Scanning of this message and
> addition of this foo
> on with virus detection software.
> 
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> 



-- 
-Francisco
http://pcthis.blogspot.com |PC news with out the jargon!
http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...