RE: Philosophical question - Staging tables, name and location

The data extract and load would be done using an ETL software or using simple SQL statements:

Here is what it would look like in SQL:

/*Delete data from staging table*/
DELETE TESTLIB.TABLE1;

/*Load new data from production into Test library*/
INSERT INTO TESTLIB.TABLE1 (Col1, Col2, Col3)
SELECT Col1, Col2, Col3 from PRODLIB.TABLE1;

Doesn't seem to terribly complex to me?

Only the data load stuff would need to have libraries defined.


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wilt [mailto:charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 4:07 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Philosophical question - Staging tables, name and location

Matt,

I was leaning in that direction. However, obviously there will be processes that take data out of the staging table and put it into the production table. If the name is the same, I'd have to qualify each name.
Which doesn't really play well with a IBM i CMS given my development and production are on the same single LPAR box.

Charles


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Matt Olson <Matt.Olson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'd go the different libraries route, same table names. Just change
your library list order and you should be done.

Put test library before the production library or vice versa depending
on what library you want to use. Or better yet just leave out the
test or production library from your list depending on what library you want to use.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wilt [mailto:charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:48 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Philosophical question - Staging tables, name and location

Another philosophical question for you all..

I'm beginning to work with a once a week incremental data feed from an
outside source that consists of about 30 tables.

I'll end up with a set of 30 production tables and 30 staging tables.

I intend to have the production tables in a separate library from the
rest of my application (currently in 4 data libraries)

I'm trying to decide rather of not to keep the staging tables in the
same library as the production tables or in another library.

Obviously, if I keep them in the same library, I'd need need to have
the staging table named differently from the production version.
Whereas if I put the staging tables in another library I could have the same name.

I was initially leaning toward same name, different libraries. But
now I'm thinking I want different names so I can use unqualified names
and depend on the library list resolution. Primarily so I can have
TEST/DEV environments within my change management system (Aldon)

But that leaves me with deciding rather or not to have the tables in
one library or two.

Thoughts?

Charles
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take
a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take
a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.