RE: SQL logical file equivalent

Walden wrote on 04/20/2007 09:18:22 AM:

Why not do that?

I was trying to say (perhaps poorly <G>) that you SHOULD create your
logical files by explicitly specifying the fields you want. You should
NOT create the LF by omitting the field list and allowing all table
columns to flow into the LF.

I'm suggesting this approach so your 3GL RLA access is isolated from any
table changes in the base table. If you omit the field list and just
inherit the complete field list into the LF than the addition of a new
column to the base table will result in a change in the format level id
of the LF and you'll have to deal with that impact -- something I'm
trying to avoid.

Make sense?

-Walden

Hi, Walden:

Yes, it makes sense and I agree that is *a* good way to go, in many cases.
Sometimes you do want to see all the fields; the logical in that case
might just be keyed, or select/omit, or both. But in many cases you only
want or need a subset of the fields, and when that is true calling them
out explicitly in the DDS can avoid a lot of potential headaches --
including avoiding a format level ID change, as you mentioned.

None of which is a revelation to you, I'm sure [grin].

Darrell




This e-mail, including attachments, may contain information that is
confidential and/or proprietary, and may only be used by the person to
whom this email is addressed. If the recipient of this e-mail is not the
intended recipient or an authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If this e-mail has been delivered to you in error, please
notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this e-mail
immediately.