× 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 haven't followed this in great detail but, if you want to limit the search
to a particular user first, perhaps you could try a CTE and use that as the
source for the balance of your query.



-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of James H. H. Lampert
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:39 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Subject: Re: More still, Re: Questions about RPG service program as an SQL
UDF

On 3/4/13 12:39 PM, Tom E Stieger wrote:
I'm wondering if this has to do with how your JOIN is defined.

What is you did the following instead:

from SCHEDACTVIEW join ACCOUNTVIEWon
SCHEDACTVIEW.RECORD_ID=ACCOUNTVIEW.RECORD_ID
and SCHEDACTVIEW.ACCOUNT_ID=ACCOUNTVIEW.ACCOUNT_ID
where SCHEDACTVIEW.USER# = ?

It should logically be the same, but due to the UDF I'm not sure if
the optimizer will see it as the same.


Unfortunately, no change: it still runs through the entire file (as
witnessed by the diagnostic version of the censor), and the Visual Explain
looks exactly the same, either way (I'm back on our box).

Ditto if I add "AND SCHEDACTVIEW.RECORD_ID < 999999999" (which would weed
out activities that aren't "account-only," since a RECORD_ID with more than
9 digits can never be an account) (for more, see below)

It's as if the optimizer itself is fighting me.

Is there some way to refactor this so that it checks whether the USER#
matches *before* it bothers looking for anything else?

**********

***I changed this from ACCOUNT_ID b/c I thought it might be a typo***

Actually, there is no RECORD_ID field in ACCOUNTVIEW.

SCHEDACTVIEW.RECORD_ID can be an account ID, a contact ID, or an
account/contact relation ID, which is why we have that 3-branched UNION ALL
in there. SCHEDACTVIEW.ACCOUNT_ID is a separate direct link to the account
(or zero, for activities with a contact but no account)

Which is to say that the SCHEDACTVIEW.ACCOUNT_ID=ACCOUNTVIEW.ACCOUNT_ID
comparison is redundant here. But getting rid of it accomplishes nothing.
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (RPG400-L)
mailing list To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-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.