MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive

Record format ID not the same for INDEX with ADD column-name specified



I had a DDS logical replaced some time ago(pre v5r4) with an SQL index:
create index IORITEM1

rename index ioritem1 to ioritend;

Now I'm looking at replacing the PF with an newly named SQL table, turning
the original PF into a logical...all that is working fine till I get to the
above index.

Updating to 7.1 and using my new table, gives me this:
create index IORITEMND
rcdfmt IORITEM1;

which gives me a LF with the same record format ID as the original.

However, I know that I'll be making changes to the new table and I wanted
to go ahead and make the record format of the index/logical static by using
the ADD column-name clause:
create index IORITEMND
rcdfmt IORITEM1
add FLD1, FLD2, FLD2 <...>;

(fields names just examples)
Although DSPFD shows the same length and number of fields, the record
format ID is not the same.

Ok, so it appears that the key columns end up preceding the rest of the
rest of the columns...and the manual does mention this. :)

I guess for "heritage" DDS files, I'll just need to stick to DDS if I want
a static format unless I'm willing to recompile existing programs one time.

Unless somebody knows of something I'm missing?


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 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