× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Dan,

Can I claim lunch from my earlier posting today? I pointed out ...

CRTPF, CRTLF, CHGPF, or OVRDBF parameter FRCRATIO that controls blocking at the OS/400 level for writes and even updates.

or didn't you get that one ...

John


At 11:21 AM 4/24/2003, you wrote:
Hi Doug,

If you can prove to me that the AS/400 supports record blocking for update files, even if limited
to those files with no unique keyed APs, I will buy you lunch. (How does White Castle sound? <g>)


Just to verify my sanity, I just wrote a simple CL/RPG:
CL program:
   Pgm
     OVRDBF  RTATESTPF NBRRCDS(40) SEQONLY(*YES 40)
     call    rtatestrpg
     dltovr  RTATESTPF
   Endpgm

RPG program:
     Frtatestpf uf   e             disk
     C                   dou       *inLR
     C                   read      rtatestpf                              LR
     C                   if        not *inLR
     C                   eval      rttxt = 'wassup?'
     C                   update    rtatestr
     C                   endif
     C                   enddo

No record blocking takes place. The file is a physical with no key, and with no logicals
associated with it. Upon the call to the RPG program, the job reports:
Open of member RTATESTPF was changed to SEQONLY(*NO)


So, 'fess up. How does one do this?

- Dan

--- Douglas Handy <dhandy1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> >On the AS/400, there is no record blocking for update files, period. I fail to see why this
> is,
> >especially in light of the AS/400's single level store.
>
> I think this is only true when there is a unique access path, and the
> suppression of record blocking is simply to force an immediate test for
> duplicate keys.
>
> Under SSP on the S/36, it could block them anyway and you didn't find out about
> the duplicates until the keysort when the file was closed. (Remember those
> nasty messages?)
>
> I believe the 400 can block record updates, provided the physical and associated
> logicals do not have a unique access path. In practice this means most files
> cannot be blocked for update.
>
> Doug


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.