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).


----- 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.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 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.