|
> From: Walden H. Leverich > > >This is not a good reason, especially if you have encapsulated your > >updates in a single place. > > Or have properly used SQL for your reads and writes. SQL doesn't care > how many fields I add to the end of my table (or the middle, or the > beginning) it's going after named fields. This bit doesn't really matter if you have updates scattered throughout your code, because now you have to find every one and fix it to use the counter. In fact, SQL makes it far more difficult because you can't use normal XREF procedures to find which programs use which files and fields. Impact analysis, especially with dynamic SQL, is much more difficult than with native I/O. SQL is not a panacea. It's great for queries and for mass updates, not so great for transaction processing. Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.