RE: SQL Performance Question

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Metz, Zak
>
> You can debate whether or not this would have been "better" done
> in RPG or whatever, but I find SQL to be much simpler to read
> than a series of chains, and much easier to code, so although I
> agree that I could probably get better performance in RPG, I'd
> hate to have to make changes to it. But in SQL...no problem!

I wasn't going to say anything, but you're the one who brought it up.  This
SQL statement is basically the equivalent of eight CHAINs.  It would have
taken what, ten or fifteen minutes to write in RPG?  If it would have taken
more than fifteen minutes, it's not RPG's fault, but let's be generous and
say an hour.

How long have you been working on the SQL?  How much did your employer
actually pay for this solution that, in your own estimation, doesn't even
perform as well as the native RPG would?  And what changes do you foresee
that will be easier to make in SQL than in RPG?  How does your company make
its money back for the decision you made to use SQL?

To everyone reading this, I realize this may sound critical of Zak, but it's
not.  It is meant as an example of what should be a standard cost/benefit
exercise for anybody choosing one technological solution over another.

I'd love to hear from anybody out there - did this decision make fiscal
sense for Zak's employer?

Joe