# Which is more efficient READ/FIND? **URL:** \ **Category:** Forum\ **Tags:** Adabas-Natural, Natural, Natural-on-Mainframes\ **Created:** [May 10, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943 "2006-05-10T12:44:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rahul\_mf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f08c70/32.png) [@rahul\_mf](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/rahul_mf)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/1 "2006-05-10T12:44:15Z")
Hi all, Can anyone tell me out of READ and FIND which is more efficient and why? Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Matthias1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@Matthias1](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Matthias1)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/2 "2006-05-10T17:48:22Z")
It depends! A rule of thumb is: READ is for mass data operations FIND is good for finding and sorting less records See also: [http://adabas.forums.softwareag.com/viewtopic.php?t=862](http://adabas.forums.softwareag.com/viewtopic.php?t=862) ---
**Author:** ![Curtis\_Pew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Curtis\_Pew](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Curtis_Pew)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/3 "2006-05-12T00:18:09Z")
The way I would put it: if you want to zero in on a specific group of records, use FIND. If you want to browse through a range of records, use READ. Examples: Find out how much a particular employee makes – use FIND Output an employee phone book – use READ EMPLOYEES BY LAST-NAME Verify that every employee has a valid ZIP code – use READ PHYSICAL (assuming ZIP is not a descriptor.) ---
**Author:** ![Wilfried\_B](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/user_avatar/techcommunity.softwareag.com/wilfried_b/32/83_2.png) [@Wilfried\_B](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/Wilfried_B)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 11:58am UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/4 "2006-05-12T11:58:46Z")
What do you mean by"efficient" ? - efficient in lines of code and understanding - efficient in number of database calls - efficient in number of database io’s - efficient in response time / database duration - efficient in cpu usage of the database service - efficient in cpu usage of the natural program - efficient in accounting costs (which may be a mixture of the above) and so on. If you ask such a question, please provide an example. ---
**Author:** ![FerozImtiaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dbc845/32.png) [@FerozImtiaz](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/FerozImtiaz)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/5 "2006-05-12T23:13:53Z")
Depends, for example - if you have 1000 records 1. and you intend processing most (more than say 80 % depends on the environment) use read. NOTE: The higher the number of records the higher the percentage should be. 2. if you intend processing only a few records then use FIND Another pre-emptive measure for assigning descriptors is, If you are not sure you will use it as a descriptor define the field as a NON DESCRIPTOR with N and write your code as FIND (ADABAS will convert it into a READ) and later on if you decide that it should be a descriptor change only the ADABAS file - the programs will not need any change. Good luck Feroz Imtiaz ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/original/3X/c/d/cd19967bb605d28a72d77eb83a1cae22f3df2eb8.svg) [@system](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/6 "2006-05-12T23:46:09Z")
> [@Feroz Imtiaz](#): > > 1. and you intend processing most (more than say 80 % depends on the environment) use read. NOTE: The higher the number of records the higher the percentage should be. I disagree here, a growing number of records should see the percentage shrink, not rise. ---
**Author:** ![FerozImtiaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dbc845/32.png) [@FerozImtiaz](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/FerozImtiaz)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/7 "2006-05-13T23:27:36Z")
> [@Wolfgang Winter](#): > > > [@Feroz Imtiaz](#): > > > > 1. and you intend processing most (more than say 80 % depends on the environment) use read. NOTE: The higher the number of records the higher the percentage should be. > > I disagree here, a growing number of records should see the percentage shrink, not rise. Think about it, TOTAL RECORDS RECORDS to PROCESS % USE * * * 1000 800 80 READ 100,000 90,000 90 READ 100,000 50,000 50 READ / FIND You are right, if it is READ LOGICAL and escape. For READ PHYSICAL maybe a FIND is better ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/techcommunity/original/3X/c/d/cd19967bb605d28a72d77eb83a1cae22f3df2eb8.svg) [@system](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 2:40pm UTC](https://techcommunity.softwareag.com/t/which-is-more-efficient-read-find/60943/8 "2021-04-02T14:40:38Z")