Talk:Batch processing: Difference between revisions
m + class=C importance=mid |
No edit summary |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
This term is used in both the first and second sentences. Can anyone think of a synonym or another way of saying this so it isn't redundant? [[User:Peter Flass|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass|talk]]) 16:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC) |
This term is used in both the first and second sentences. Can anyone think of a synonym or another way of saying this so it isn't redundant? [[User:Peter Flass|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass|talk]]) 16:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Sequential Semantics == |
|||
It came up in a discussion with a non-english speaker that while "batch files" and "batch jobs" in computing usually imply sequential operation on elements within the "batch", this is a semantic departure from the traditional culinary use of the term where "batch" is a group of things baked at the same time, which is more analogous to parallel computation. The initial intention of using "batch" was likely to indicate that punchcards were fed in the same tray or whatever, but even though even mainframes had parallelism, it ended up implying a sequential set of commands due to the cards being read in sequence and as the term was adopted by "batch files" which had very little in the way of parallel syntactical constructs, by contrast to actual programming languages took on that connotation. Just an interesting linguistic point that may be worth noting. ([[Special:Contributions/71.233.167.118|71.233.167.118]] ([[User talk:71.233.167.118|talk]]) 06:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 06:11, 30 January 2016
![]() | Computing C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
Is batch processing not when the computer saves up a lot of jobs, and then does them all at one time, at the end ? Wb
- I thought that too.
No, its still in practice for some special scenarios. Like if i have to do some bulk action on remote database through objects, i will never do it one by one. Instead i will prefer to make a batch of all tasks and will submit it to remote database through batch queue. Remote DB then will execute the batch as a whole, and hence saving a lot of time.203.122.33.12 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
what about the execution speed of the batch jobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
merge?
I placed {{merge}} tags on this article and Job processing cycle. Job processing cycle has no references, so there may be nothing to merge, in which case it should be redirected. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I did, in the end, simply redirect the unreferenced abandoned article. Geo Swan (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Batch Performance Problem/Solution
A lot of this section is controversial. For example the suggestion that batch should complete in half the window. In mainframe batch circles at least this has never been "best practice", achieved, nor desirable. Similarly the "85% reduction" number is an overly aggressive one (and the point, arguably, need not be made). Martin Packer (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Manual intervation
This term is used in both the first and second sentences. Can anyone think of a synonym or another way of saying this so it isn't redundant? Peter Flass (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Sequential Semantics
It came up in a discussion with a non-english speaker that while "batch files" and "batch jobs" in computing usually imply sequential operation on elements within the "batch", this is a semantic departure from the traditional culinary use of the term where "batch" is a group of things baked at the same time, which is more analogous to parallel computation. The initial intention of using "batch" was likely to indicate that punchcards were fed in the same tray or whatever, but even though even mainframes had parallelism, it ended up implying a sequential set of commands due to the cards being read in sequence and as the term was adopted by "batch files" which had very little in the way of parallel syntactical constructs, by contrast to actual programming languages took on that connotation. Just an interesting linguistic point that may be worth noting. (71.233.167.118 (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC))