RE: Re[2]: Logical Files vs. Physical Keys -- MIDRANGE-L

Jon,

  I have never un-deleted a record from a Physical
file. How have you done this?   

  Thanks,
  Vance 

--- Jon Erickson <jerickson@800.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if this point has been covered, but,..
> 1. You can un-delete records from an unkeyed
> physical.
> 2. There may be requirements for arrival sequence,
> (which of course could be
> date/time stamp sequence).
> 
> Just my .02......
> 
> Regards,
> Jon A. Erickson
> Sr. Programmer Analyst
> 800.COM Inc.
> 1516 NW Thurman St
> Portland, OR  97209-2517
> 
> Direct: 503.944.3613
> Fax: 503.944.3690
> Web: http://800.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eric.delong@pmsi-services.com
> [mailto:eric.delong@pmsi-services.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:57 AM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re[2]: Logical Files vs. Physical Keys 
> 
> 
> 
>      Sorry, but I can see no advantages to unkeyed
> physical files. I see 
>      no additional flexibility, I have heard no
> argument that compels me 
>      to believe that unkeyed physicals are better.
> You've stated that 
>      nonkeyed physicals are "arguably better"
> without arguing your 
>      point. Just saying it is so is not very
> convincing :)
>      
>      eric.delong@pmsi-services.com
> 
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: RE: Logical Files vs. Physical Keys 
> Author:  <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> at INET_WACO
> Date:    3/24/00 10:55 PM
> 
> 
> Chris,
> I can see why you feel this way if you work in an
> environment where people 
> who don't know what they are doing remove members
> from LFs.  You might want 
> to limit their authority.  I'll stick to the 
> statement that nonkeyed PFs
> are 
> arguably better than keyed PFs because of
> flexibility.  If you reserve one
> LF 
> for all updates as part of your record locking
> strategy, this LF can be the 
> one with the UNIQUE keyword.   On this issue,
> consistency is probably 
> essential no matter what strategy you use (in spite
> of your signature
> quote). 
> --Chapin Kaynor
>      
> > 
> >  Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:47:37 -0800
> >  From: Chris Bipes <rpg@cross-check.com>
> >  Subject: RE: Logical Files vs. Physical Keys 
> >  
> >  Yes you can use unique keyed logicals to force
> your physical unique, that
> 
> is
> >  until the logical gets its data member removed,
> thus no index maintained,
> >  and some batch program updates the physical.  Now
> the logical member
> cannot 
> >  be added back because of duplicate unique keys. 
> OOPS! some green program
> >  just caused you a big headache in scrubbing the
> data to remove the
> >  duplicates or re-assign the unique keys.  Gee
> what aux files have the key
> 
> >  you need to scrub and which record goes to which?
>  
> >  
> >  Ok that's a worst case scenario but can be
> prevented by putting the
> unique 
> >  key directly on the physical.  I have had the
> index of a physical get
> >  corrupted during a power failure and the ups
> blowing a fuse.  It was real
> 
> >  easy to recapture ALL the data to a new, freshly
> compiled, physical with
> a 
> >  simple CPYF FROMRCD(1).  JMHO and bad experience,
> it is better to put the
> 
> >  lowest level unique key on the physical for
> forcing the data to remain
> >  unique always.
> >  
> >  Christopher K. Bipes 
> mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com
> >  Sr. Programmer/Analyst   
> mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com 
> >  CrossCheck, Inc.  http://www.cross-check.com
> >  6119 State Farm Drive     Phone: 707 586-0551 x
> 1102 
> >  Rohnert Park CA  94928 Fax: 707 586-1884
> >  
> >  If consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
> only geniuses work here.
> 
> >  Karen Herbelin - Readers Digest 3/2000
> >  
> >  
> >  - -----Original Message-----
> >  From: Kaynor@aol.com [mailto:Kaynor@aol.com] 
> >  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 7:46 PM
> >  To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> >  Subject: Logical Files vs. Physical Keys 
> >  
> >  
> >  Chris,
> >  The reasons you give for keying the physical can
> be achieved by using the
> 
> >  UNIQUE keyword on a logical.  Keeping your
> physicals unkeyed is arguably 
> >  better because of the flexibility it provides.  
> >  - --Chapin Kaynor
> >    Vermont
> >  
> +---
> | 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 
> +---
>      
> 
> 
> +---
> | 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
> +---
> +---
> | 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
> +---
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
+---
| 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
+---