Re: SQL vs DDS

Bruce,

I'd have to agree with you.  The biggest limitation of SQL that I have had to 
tackle is that SQL can not have static selections.  This is now offset by 
EVI support. Overall SQL has roughly equivalent or better function if you 
are willing to work with it.

David Morris

>>> "R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr." <rbruceh@ibm.net> 08/24/99 02:57PM >>>
Rob Berendt wrote:
> 
> Your point is valid.  But why give the same limitations of DDS to SQL?
> 

IMHO, IBM is certainly not propagating limitations of DDS into SQL, but
just the opposite. They are creating limitations in DDS by updating SQL
and not DDS. Witness the column level security. Can't do it in DDS.
Witness the distinct types. They are very much different from reference
fields.

As for the DSPFFD command, any DBA that has worked in any other DB2
product, Oracle, Informix, etc. can and should be able to use the
catalogs once they know the schema name. This is, in fact, what I have
been doing much more often than using the DSPFFD command. The only other
warning is that the catalogs were partial in V3 and have changed.  But I
don't push SQL as hard on a V3 machine as I do on V4R2 and above.

-- 
===========================================================
R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr.
 -- IBM Certified AS/400 Professional System Administrator
 -- IBM Certified AS/400 Professional Network Administrator

"The sum of all human knowledge is a fixed constant.
    It's the population that keeps growing!"


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---