Do smaller modules mean a faster system?

[DFS]

I don't mean lines of code in a given Sub or Function, but the overall size
of code modules.

I wouldn't expect it to matter much if at all, but I recently moved a good
bit of code out of one large module (80 subs or functions) and put it into
one of 5 new modules, and now my system seems significantly more responsive.

Or is it just wishful thinking?

[Br]

DFS wrote:

I don't mean lines of code in a given Sub or Function, but the
overall size of code modules.

I wouldn't expect it to matter much if at all, but I recently moved a
good bit of code out of one large module (80 subs or functions) and
put it into one of 5 new modules, and now my system seems
significantly more responsive.

Or is it just wishful thinking?

If I remember correctly when you use a function from a module the entire
module is loaded into memory? Thus, if your module is smaller it may run
faster.

For readability it's a good idea to put code into separate modules
anyway(eg. all functions that alter an employee record).
--
regards,

Br@dley

[Anthony England]

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:BD**************@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

I don't mean lines of code in a given Sub or Function, but the overall size
of code modules.

I wouldn't expect it to matter much if at all, but I recently moved a good
bit of code out of one large module (80 subs or functions) and put it into
one of 5 new modules, and now my system seems significantly more
responsive.

Or is it just wishful thinking?

Theoretically splitting code up into smaller sections should put less of a
strain on the system. If you have 80 subs and functions in one module, then
if you call one, the whole lot gets loaded, whereas perhaps you only needed
a few.
Having said that, I have never really noticed a difference and my modules
are built up by logically organizing my code into blocks. In other words,
readability and logic is my priority. However, you are now in a position to
do some empirical tests. Take 2 versions of the database and make some
measurements - then *you* can let *us* know, what practical difference you
measured.

[David W. Fenton]

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in
news:BD**************@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

I don't mean lines of code in a given Sub or Function, but the
overall size of code modules.

I wouldn't expect it to matter much if at all, but I recently
moved a good bit of code out of one large module (80 subs or
functions) and put it into one of 5 new modules, and now my system
seems significantly more responsive.

Or is it just wishful thinking?

I think it's probably a result of discarding old compiled code and
getting freshly compiled code to replace it.

If you coded with COMPILE ON DEMAND off all the time, you'd get the
same benefit.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[DFS]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in
news:BD**************@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

I don't mean lines of code in a given Sub or Function, but the
overall size of code modules.

I wouldn't expect it to matter much if at all, but I recently
moved a good bit of code out of one large module (80 subs or
functions) and put it into one of 5 new modules, and now my system
seems significantly more responsive.

Or is it just wishful thinking?
I think it's probably a result of discarding old compiled code and
getting freshly compiled code to replace it.

OK. I'm also going to decompile, save, compact/repair, save, recompile,
save the beast and see what happens.
If you coded with COMPILE ON DEMAND off all the time, you'd get the
same benefit.

I do code with Compile on Demand off all the time.