× 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.


  1.  Home
  2. RPG400-L
  3. September 2009

Re: Use of VARYING fields

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Simon Coulter <shc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 16/09/2009, at 7:13 PM, David FOXWELL wrote:


After having read up, I have a couple of questions. If you don't
care about space saving, can't you just code the maximum and
allocated length as the same?

Yes, but what would be the point? That would effectively be a fixed-
length field with an additional 2-byte length prefix. Might make it
easier to determine actual length of the content but that's all.

Simon,

The point would be, you'd benefit from not having to %trimr() the
fields yet don't pay a i/o hit when accessing any records.

I'd consider such a field as an alternative to a small (say <50) fixed
length field. Particularly in a table access by native RPG op-codes.
Otherwise you're taking a dual i/O hit for some records even if you
don't need the variable length field. Of course, an alternative would
be to have a logical that didn't include the varying field(s).

Charles Wilt

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.