[BUG] write to file

[Roger Eller]

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 <jacque at 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         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com