Re: File Reorg - Cons

Hi,

IMHO, RGZPFM should run faster than CPYF twice.

Under the covers, RGZPFM:

1.    Removes all logical views.
2.    Does a CPYF removing all deleted records to a temporary file.
3.    Effectively deletes the data from the PF, returning the data from the
temporary file (mentioned above) to the permanent file.
4.    Rebuilds all logical views.

CPYF twice, would:

1.    Copy all of the data to a permanent structure that it build.
2.    Come up for air.
3.    Copy all the data back, and rebuild all logical views.

The huge differentiator is the moving of the temporary file into the space
of the original PF.

When CPU was very tight (/38 days), I tried both methods, and RGZPGM was
the winner.

Al

Al Barsa, Jr.
Barsa Consulting Group, LLC

400>390

914-251-1234
914-251-9406 fax

http://www.barsaconsulting.com
http://www.taatool.com



                                                                           
             "Henrik Krebs"                                                
             <hkrebs@xxxxxxxxx                                             
             >                                                          To 
             Sent by:                  <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>           
             midrange-l-bounce                                          cc 
             s@xxxxxxxxxxxx                                                
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: File Reorg - Cons               
             04/28/2004 09:19                                              
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
             Midrange Systems                                              
                 Technical                                                 
                Discussion                                                 
             <midrange-l@midra                                             
                 nge.com>                                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           




What's the practical difference between CPYF twice and RGZPFM?

I can't se why CPYF should run faster or allocate the file for a shorter
time than RGZPFM.

Of cause, if the second CPYF is MBROPT(*ADD) it should have an *EXCL lock
for a shorter period, but is a file with only half the expected records
better than a locked file? I should rather think that it's worse

Henrik

> ------------------------------
>
> date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:09:59 +0100
> from: fiona.fitzgerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> subject: Re: File Reorg - Cons
.
.
>
> Or a cheap alternative would be to CPYF filename to copy COMPRESS(*YES)
> Compress out deleted records.
> CLRPFM the file, then CPYF copy to filename.
>
> Fiona Fitzgerald



_______________________________________________
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/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.