>>>>>>Try (4) only for starters ( you may want to play with 64 and try different values) , and take it to 500 iterations so you can compare with the previous results
>>>>>
>>>>>Same thing - start with ~0.14 sec. and end with 1.73 sec.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm thinking - can it help to sleep for, say, 2 sec. after 50 iterations?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, no improvement at all - gonna sleep on it
>>>
>>>For now, no improvements at all. I removed all code except for return string from another procedure (my colleague has been testing this one) and I'll see how it performs when it does nothing - does the execution time increase or not - running this test now - hang on few minutes.
>>>
>>>From 0.02 to 0.12 - what do you think?
>>
>>
>>>From 0.02 to 0.12 - what do you think?
>>I dunno - you tell me
>>
>>Let me sleep on it, I'll give you an answer in the morning ...
>
>That's fine, thanks again - I'll see your answer Saturday night. Let me know if you want to see the programs and log file.
>There are only 2 prg and the log.


This has gotten to a point where the only sensible answer I can give is
(1) take it to iteration 500
(2) Start coverage logging
(3) let it do the iteration
(4) stop coverage logging

Then see which parts take a long time