×
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.
Fair enough - but how do you know that 10002 and the prior image 10001 are the same [for example] product row??
You could have 10002 be the AFTER image for an add of "Cheerios grape" and 10001 be the AFTER image for an add of "Cheerios cherry".
Then there are the "rollback" journal records DR, UR, PR - I am thinking RRN is critical to processing all of this stuff.
Wouldn't a join take a lot longer than reading sequentially? Not sure. You would probably have to process ALL journal entries. With sequential, one only has to process the oldest and newest for each RRN to detect changes.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sam_L
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:10 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: estimating RGZPFM runtime
Ummm... In the limited stuff I do, I've always joined the after image
to the before image on after journal sequence number = journal sequence
number -1.
I kind of always assumed that the Journal logic would write both records
simultaneously and thus they would have adjacent journal sequence numbers.
Seems to work in practice, but we have a P05 Power 6 that maybe isn't
fast enough to cause any problem.
Sam
On 11/19/2013 11:00 AM, Stone, Joel wrote:
You lost me at your first statement.
I am thinking that you HAVE to rely on RRN when processing the journals. How else can you compare the BEFORE & AFTER images and be sure that you are comparing the same entity?
midrange.com
