Re: Table Definitions DDS or SQL?

I still create new files using DDS, but have created some files using SQL.
I find SQL cumbersome to define or to alter tables, as I am used to a
reference file with DDS (still at  V5R1). If SQL syntax could be a little
simpler to do that, I might use it more often. (haven't read the article
yet).

Some other aspects:
How do you manage those CREATE TABLE and ALTER statements? DDS is kept in a
SRCPF. Do you also use SRCPFs to keep those SQL statements?

Reference fields can only be retrieved with DSPF to an *OUTFILE, not with
an API, AFAIK. This applies for DDS created files. Is this also true for
SQL created files?

Regards,
Carel Teijgeler

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6-10-2006 at 7:38 HauserBirgitta wrote:

I'm trying to convince the rest of the IT programmers to do the same,

but it's a hard slog.

make your collegues and even your managers read the following article. I'm

sure they will be convinced using SQL-defined tables will be the

better choice.

Modernizing Database Access The Madness Behind the Methods
By Dan Cruikshank

http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/db2/pdf/Performance_DDS_SQL.pd
f

IMO there is only one disavantage of SQL-DDL compared with DDS-definition:

In SQL reference files are not supported.
Sure a SQL table can be created as:
Create Table ...
     as Select ... From ReferenceFile

But the references are not stored in the system tables, i.e. in the system

tables only the absolute definition (such as Char(20) or Dec(11, 2)) are

stored. So, if you have to change a field/column definition, it is not

enough to do a simple change reference file and actualizing the tables

with a simple CHGPF. You have to change the field/columns definitions

manually in every table, where those fields are defined, by using the SQL

command ALTER TABLE.