Re: Storing Numeric Values in the Database

[Steve Richter <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx>]

zoned and packed are both limited in that they don't store the decimal
point in the data. And the bit pattern for the sign is both vulnerable
to a decimal data error and does not convert from one ccsid to
another. ( F1F2F3 will convert to whatever the encoding is for unicode
123. But F1F2D3 does not translate to 123- )

Ideal would be to store numbers as char strings with a deciimal point
and sign char.  But then all the programming languages I know would
not handle such fields as numeric data.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Generally speaking, what is the current wisdom about storing numeric
> data in the database?  Do folks still prefer packed representation for
> data with decimal positions?  Zoned is a little easier on the eyes when
> looking at a raw record, but it takes a few more bytes especially as the
> fields get larger.  And as far as I know RPG still likes to convert
> things to packed when it reads a file unless you tell it not to.  That
> being the case is there still a performance issue these days?
>
> We like zoned fields here, but I'm trying to address the issue from a
> thorough technical standpoint.  If you're trying to be as lean as
> possible, you could argue that integers should be stored in binary,
> although that has its own issues.  Heck, an argument could be made that
> you should store all data as integers with implied digits and decimal
> positions.
>
> What say you all?
>
> Joe
> --
> 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.