|
On a 'work with' application you could work with a scroll cursor. And it could be done. Might look a little funky to scroll back through to find the record that was selected. But the 'Update where current of...' shouldn't be too difficult. Rob Berendt -- Group Dekko Services, LLC Dept 01.073 PO Box 2000 Dock 108 6928N 400E Kendallville, IN 46755 http://www.dekko.com |-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------| | CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx | | | Sent by: | | | midrange-l-bounces@midrang| To| | e.com | midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx | | | cc| | 07/26/2004 09:12 AM | | | | Subject| | Please respond to | Single record access | | Midrange Systems | really required (was RE: | | Technical Discussion | Views and Indexes) | | <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxx| | | m> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------------------------+-------------------------------------------| Joe, Option B is where the solution lies. How about providing some examples of standard business operations where you feel single record access is required and we'll see if there isn't a way to remove the requirement. Most often used one in RPG I can think of is checking a record's existence to ensure data integrity. The need for this is eliminated with a properly defined DB that uses constraints properly. Another place would be a "work-with" type application where a user is presented with a set of items from which they chose one to edit or display. Off the top of my head, one could possibly use the same cursor that presents the set to present the single item. This would eliminate the performance differences that you've seen in your testing. Perhaps somebody else has a better idea. Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:55 PM > To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion' > Subject: RE: Views and Indexes > > > > Not to complain, but you've said things like this several times, Buck. > You imply that somehow reorganizing your database will make > SQL perform > as well as native I/O. > > I contend, and have been showing, that there are standard operations > required for business programming that do not (and probably > will never) > work as well in SQL as in native I/O. > > If you disagree, I'd love an example of where a different database > design will either: > > A. Make a single record FETCH as fast as a CHAIN > -or- > B. Remove the need for single-record access > > Joe > -- This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.
midrange.com
