× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



I decided to try attacking another part of this project, and opened a PF with my JDBCR4 test-bed, without bothering to take out the code activating extended metadata.

And I GOT NONBLANK VALUES FOR SCHEMA AND TABLE NAMES.

I tried it again with a simple logical.

I STILL GOT NONBLANK VALUES FOR SCHEMA AND TABLE NAMES.

So then I went back to the join-logical I'd been testing with. Still blank on both for that.

After sending the above to Scott Klement, (I thought I was sending it to the List), I got back a response, that DDS join-logicals were "a weird peculiarity of the DDS/native record access world" that "do not exist in the SQL world."

That seemed rather odd, so I tried it with a join that had been generated from SQL similar to:

CREATE VIEW WTADDRV1 (RAETID, RADTYP, ADID, ADCNTR,
ADCITY, ADCITSORT, ADDR1, ADDR2, ADDR3, ADDRSORT, ADPROV, ADPROVSORT,
ADPCDE, ADCTY, ADCTYSORT, ADCTYNUM, ADUSTATE, ADSTATNUM,
ADUZP5, ADUZP4)
AS SELECT R.RAETID, R.RADTYP,
A.ADID, A.ADCNTR,
A.ADCITY, A.ADCITS, A.ADDR1, A.ADDR2, A.ADDR3, A.ADDRS, A.ADPROV, A.ADPROS,
A.ADPCDE, A.ADCTY, A.ADCTYS, A.ADCTYN, A.ADUSTA,
A.ADSTATN, A.ADUZP5, A.ADUZP4
FROM WTADDR A LEFT JOIN WTRADR R ON A.ADID = R.RADID

The real file has a few additional fields, most of which were calculated using UDFs. And when I opened it in my JDBCR4 test-bed,

ALL THE FIELDS HAD CORRECT NONBLANK SCHEMA AND TABLE NAMES, EXCEPT FOR THE UDF-CALCULATED ONES THAT, NOT SURPRISINGLY, HAD BLANK VALUES.

I don't doubt Scott's assertion, given his far greater experience with such things (not to mention that I'd just confirmed it empirically), and using JDBC to access a native join-logical on the same box amounts to "carrying coals to Newcastle," but that doesn't mean I *understand* it.

Can anybody explain *why* it is that a native, DDS-generated, join-logical is somehow fundamentally different from an SQL join-view? I would have thought that in terms of database internals, making them fundamentally different would amount to "reinventing the wheel."

--
JHHL

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.