I've never seen or heard of any difference in performance. AFAIK, the only diference is in the DDS source syntax. Most notably the library qualifier on keywords that accept a library (ie. PFILE, REF, REFFLD etc.). This the same issue with other S/38 object types (ie. CMD38, CLP38 and DSPF38) as well. You'll need to switch them to native source types (PF, LF) if want to utilize any of the AS/400 DDS enhancements. One reason for dropping the 38 source types is because of the nuisance with the batch compiling them. Unlike with native types, PDM submits S/38 objects for compile using the JOBD's library list (not *CURRENT). Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: <rick.baird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:36 AM Subject: differences between PF38, LF38 and PF, LF files > hey all, > > Is there any real difference between existing physical/logical files with > attributes LF38, PF38 and LF, PF? > > I'm specifically wondering about performance, or any other appreciable > differences. > > Thanks, > > Rick
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.