MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » October 2012

RE: Restore with a compress out deleted row option.



fixed

Maybe not. :)

I'd agree with a RSTOBJ/RSTLIB if the objects never existed on the system before but I'd be inclined to take the object shells from the CCMS library though not production.

If it is an on-going task, a small program to submit multiple CPYFs (DSPOBJD to a file, read the file & submit a job), to say QUSRNOMAX, might be faster. With potentially 5,511 CPYFs running simultaneously the process could double as a stress tester. :)

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:46 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Restore with a compress out deleted row option.

CPYF might be a tad difficult with:
select count(*)
from qsys2/systables
where system_table_schema='ERPLXF'

....+....1....
COUNT ( * )
5,511


Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





From: "Monnier, Gary" <Gary.Monnier@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 10/10/2012 02:34 PM
Subject: RE: Restore with a compress out deleted row option.
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx



Rob,

I agree with John that as an option it has merits. However, you could
utilize DDM and the CPYF command to obtain the same result. It may even
be faster than saving and restoring especially if you don't have to map
fields.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:13 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Restore with a compress out deleted row option.

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
capability

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?


Rob Berendt





Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact