× 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’ve never understood the “validation on read” claim. There is no validation - if there was you would never get a decimal data error on the field move that follows the basic read/chain. It would be stopped back at the DB level.

The new query engine now works on just about all tables right? So there’s no specific advantage there.

I’m with you Vern - there’s a lot of reason to use SQL. Far less to switch to DDL.


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com

On Oct 24, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I too have been thinking that I've not seen enough performance testing to justify the claims - they all feel pretty theoretical right now. Lots of "it depends".

The new query engine - yes, that clearly has advantages for many queries.

But faster reads because there is no validation there? Probably no big deal for interactive work - long batch stuff, maybe.

I'm all for the new capabilities in SQL - and the DML can work against both DDS-based files and DDL-based tables. At this time I'm inclined to say that the benefits are more in using SQL as a language, not so much in creating database objects.

OK, bring on the firearms, y'all - I'm fully protected!! I've survived conversations in LinkedIn groups! And left!

Vern

On 10/24/2014 12:44 PM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I think that the vastly improved data integrity and security of DDL should
be a much bigger factor than the improved key indexing. Chuck has a point
that he really wants to see the cold hard performance comparisons.


Rob Berendt
-- IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive Garrett, IN 46738 Ship to: Dock 108 6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755 http://www.dekko.com From: Mike Cunningham <mike.cunningham@xxxxxxx> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 10/24/2014 01:18 PM Subject: RE: Can I use DDS to create an SQL table name Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Chuck, what about access to the improved key indexing that an SQL defined table gives you? And then there is always the future to consider. My crystal ball says at some point IBM will pull the plug completely on DDS for database definitions just like it has pulled the plug on SEU. To their credit, they have not gone the path of some other companies who have said change your ways or don't upgrade, they have given us many years to make the switch. So I don't see the demise of DDS anytime soon but 5 years from now I'm not so sure. -----Original Message----- From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CRPence Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:03 PM To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Can I use DDS to create an SQL table name On 24-Oct-2014 10:38 -0500, Darryl Freinkel wrote:
If you use iNav, you can convert all DDS to DDL. That would help you
modernise quickly and take advantage of the bigger buffer sizes which
gives better performance.
Of course, "bigger" is not always better, with regard to the
performance of every [type of] application and\or system [environment].
To be clear, "bigger buffer sizes" could just as well give worse
performance; the likelihood increases that the performance effects could
be worse, if the applications using the changed file(s) had not previously
or simultaneously been changed from RLA to SQL DML.

I will take this opportunity_to remind_ that conversion from DDS to
DDL is*not* in any way "modernizing" the database. A change that is not
required, is merely change [for the sake of change]; such changes effected
without requirements are likely to expose unforeseen issues.
If there is a feature without support via the DDS, and that feature is
available only with the SQL DDL, then a change specifically to implement
that feature via DDL would qualify as a valid modernization; e.g.
implementing_surrogate keys_ using IDENTITY columns, for which no support
exists in\via DDS.

There are no special "bigger buffer sizes" that result from a mere
conversion; the Page Size setting defaults are different between DDS and
DDL, but they can be customized. There is little that comes from that
conversion that could not have been achieved by a change to [the creation
of] the existing DDS-defined files. The one conspicuous difference from
that change, is the potential for read-performance improvements for the
lack of data validation performed on read [per the assumption that all SQL
data was validated on input\write] is one_non-modernization_ benefit from
the change; for that same effect, there is an implicit potential for an
existing dependence on the non-validation effect to be exposed in
applications that use a file that was changed.

Changing from DDS to SQL DDL is best performed only*after* having
converted existing applications from using RLA to using SQL DML, to
prevent some difficulties that might be encountered with existing and\or
persisting non-SQL applications from having changed the underlying
database physical *FILE objects into database SQL TABLE *FILE objects;
most notably, Record Format Level Identifiers and Data Mapping Errors per
increased validation requirements for SQL database objects. Failing to
consider the[se and possibly other] side effects of changing from DDS to
SQL DDL can result in issues that were not foreseen or noticed in testing.
I know of some installations that had implemented such a switch, only to
find out afterward that negative effects on some existing applications
required that they back-out the changes... surely at great cost; I recall
several specifically, one because an APAR was opened, regardless there was
nothing that would be/fixed/ because they were close
d Permanent Restriction (PRS) [increased memory footprint for journaling
had caused performance problems due to implicit Page Size
(PAGESIZE) change; since, the SQL was enabled to set a smaller page size
to reduce the memory footprint for the non-SQL accesses] and all but one
of the others were incidents of data mapping errors being effected on
input\write that had never been diagnosed before the change to DDL.

--
Regards, Chuck

--
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.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
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.