DDM has difficulties with CLOB & BLOB columns. So if any of those 5500+ tables has columns defined like this, then they are not transferable via DDM with CPYF.
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Monnier, Gary
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:34 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Restore with a compress out deleted row option.
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.
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:13 AM
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?