× 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.



Bottom line:

System value QSRTSEQ is *LANGIDSHR which is then propagated through job descriptions and the RUNSQLSTM command creating the table. The table ends up with a SRTSEQ of QSYS/QLA10025S. (upper/lower case considered equal). This is what I want.

The default collating sequence in Qry/400 is hexadecimal (*HEX). This is what's causing this index (and other indices) to be advised.

That can be changed interactively query-by-query (read "labor intensive").

What I'll be looking for:

1) A way to change the default for Qry/400 so new queries default the way I want.
2) A way to get a list of queries that have the *HEX collating sequence attribute (like some DSPOBJD to a *OUTFILE kind of thing).
3) A way to programmatically change the attribute of existing queries (I'm not too hopeful on this).

If anyone already knows how to do any of the above 3 things, please point me to the command. In the meantime, I'll be searching . . .

Jeff Crosby wrote:
Initial reply from IBM on this is: it's the SRTSEQ attribute of the table.

System value QSRTSEQ is *LANGIDSHR which is then propagated through job descriptions and the RUNSQLSTM command creating the table. The table ends up with a SRTSEQ of QSYS/QLA10025S. (upper/lower case considered equal).

I asked some questions, so stay tuned for more info . . .

Jeff Crosby wrote:
I opened a PMR.

Here's an interesting tidbit. Just because, I did the following:

CRTDUPOBJ OBJ(DMITMMST) FROMLIB(DBMSTF) OBJTYPE(*FILE)
TOLIB(JEFF) CST(*NO) TRG(*NO)

Note that I said CST(*NO). A DSPFD on the newly created file says:

Number of constraints . . . . : 0

but further down the DSPFD says:

Access Path Description Access path maintenance . . . : MAINT *IMMED Unique key values required . : UNIQUE Yes Access path journaled . . . . : No Access path . . . . . . . . . : Keyed Constraint Type . . . . . . . : NONE Number of key fields . . . . : 1 Record format . . . . . . . . : MBRECORD
Key field . . . . . . . . . : ITNBR Sequence . . . . . . . . : Ascending
Sign specified . . . . . : UNSIGNED
Zone/digit specified . . : *NONE Alternative collating seq : Yes So there's no 'constraint' but there's still a unique access path. Furthermore I *was* able to do an ALTER TABLE and *add* a unique constraint on ITNBR in this duplicated file.

Are we having fun yet?
rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Keep me posted. One attendee at the session said he built the recommended index and it still wanted him to build the recommended index. I'm curious if that is the case, or the unique constraint, or ...

By the way, the person who really shines at these sessions is an IBMer by the name of Tom McKinley. He's the "John Sears" of our time.

Rob Berendt



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
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.