I kinda like the concept but doesn't copy file already effectively
provide this ? Or are you thinking along the lines that maybe
save/restore operation could add some optimization into the mix?
Also, if you're not going to restore deleted recods why save them ?
Maybe the save can be optimized to not pick them up.
At a guess I think this would slow either the restore or save down as
it would essentially have to write or read table rows instead of disk
pages, but worth asking the quesion.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:13 AM, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Picture this: You've got a production library you want to restore to your
test system. For some reason, you just never get an opportunity to reorg
it and compress out deleted rows. Sure, you reuse deleted rows; you
thought about reorg-while-active but it still requires some dedicated
time, etc. Basically, I don't want to go down those tangents. So, please
don't plug some product that has an oh so much better reorg while active
What I am wondering is, would it be an advantage to have the capability on
RSTLIB and RSTOBJ to compress out deleted rows during the restore? Heck,
I can remember a table that got so large, on such a small "B" model, that
we had to move it to another system to reorg it. As you can see by my
earlier email I've got tables with millions of deleted rows. This could
really help on those test library restores.
I can understand concerns about a restore taking one huge amount of time.
And, perhaps that would negate the beauty of saving access paths (not
sure). Should I toss this up as a Request for Design Change? Or not?
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1
Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
Kendallville, IN 46755