Re: Single record access really required (was RE: Views and Indexes)

["Booth Martin" <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most selections where one chooses a record to work with from a larger group
are based upon some sort of subfile program.  When filling the subfile one
can add each individual record's datastructure to the subfile record as a
hidden field.  Then there is no longer a reason to look up a single record.
There are other advantages to this technique, too.
 
---------------------------------
Booth Martin
http://www.martinvt.com
---------------------------------
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Date: 07/26/04 09:25:38
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Single record access really required (was RE: Views and
Indexes)
 
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.
 
 
 
--
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.