× 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.



We have already created/used quite a number of UDF's. Most of them in SQL.
No problems so far.
Now we wrote a new UDF and had some problems.

1- Suppose you write a SQL UDF function "funcAdd" that will add two numeric fields, so you can write later on:
"Select FldNum1, FldNum2, funcAdd(FldNum1, FldNum2) ... from myFile ..."
This works OK
If instead of using "real fields", I substitute one of the fields by a numeric constant
"Select FldNum1, FldNum2, funcAdd(FldNum1, 100) ... from myFile ..."
this works also OK, it will return the sum of FldNum1 plus the constant(literal) value of 100.


2- What about alphanumeric values?
We wrote a SQL UDF function "funcAlpha" that should work with several fields, some of them alphanumeric:
Let me simplify it as being called with just two alpha fields:
"Select FldAlpha1, FldAlpha2, funcAlpha(FldAlpha1, FldAlpha2) ... from myFile ..."
This also works fine, BUT...
If instead of using "real fields", I substitute one of the fields by an alphanumeric constant
"Select FldAlpha1, FldAlpha2, funcAlpha(FldAlpha1, 'XXXX' ) ... from myFile ..."
then we get a message saying "Object funcAlpha of type *N not found"... !!!


First we thought of some typo error. No: same Select with a second "real" field, it works.
We tried changing "SQL path", "Current path", ... etc with no changes at all.


Since, as mentioned above, it works if fields or constants are numeric, then I thought of one of the very frequent FAQs already commented on this list very often, in relation to alphanumeric parameters being passed as garbage to a CL pgm from the commmand line or from SBMJOB... depending on how long parameters were defined... This has been commented on so often!

So we tried with numeric constants. As mentioned above, it worked!!!
So I thought of passing fields as 32 char... Tried in different ways, with same failure always!


Talking about functions resolution, the DB2 SQL Ref. manual mentions:
"each function is uniquely identified by its
function signature, which is its schema name, function name, the number of
parameters, and the data types of the parameters..."

I suspect the system is mapping the alpha literal as something different that the alpha field, no matter the length of the literal. In our case, FldAlpha2 was, originally 4 chars. We tried with 'XXXX' , also alpha 4, with either single or double quotes..., then rebuilt the UDF to use FldAlpha2 as well as the literal with 32 chars, ... Tried all combinations we could think of...

Since the function does not get started, we cannot debug it to try to find what it is getting instead of the alpha literal...

So, the question is, how are alphanumeric fields and/or constants mapped in a UDF?
TIA


--
Antonio Fernandez-Vicenti
afvaiv@xxxxxxxxxx


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

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.