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

["Mike" <mshaw2456@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe,

Very well said!  Use the right tool for the right task.

Regards,

Mike Shaw

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 3:35 PM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: Single record access really required (was RE: Views and
Indexes)

> From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> I think your last paragraph delves more into the detail you are
striving
> with your website.
> In this case he accessed several files with one sql statement.  Now,
is
> that still slower than the three chains in your example?
> Whether or not it is less visibly consistent, or more complex, is in
the
> eyes of the beholder.  I thought his was quite clear.

Even if you want to imply that embedded SQL is as visually consistent as
native I/O (and boy, you have to stretch to try to sell that), or that
it is less complex (again, a stretch, especially since he left out the
declare and the fetch), there's still less efficient, requires more
syntactical knowledge and takes longer to compile.

What's the benefit?  This sort of SQL, especially, where you attempt to
replicate good, efficient native I/O with SQL for no good reason is the
kind of thing that gives SQL a bad name.

Stick to what it's good for, and you're far more likely to convince
someone of SQL's merits.  This thread makes it crystal clear that the
only way SQL can even come close to native I/O for certain things is
basically to try to emulate it, something which SQL does quite poorly.

You want the eye of the beholder?  Personally, I'd probably fire anyone
who tried to put the code Charles wrote into production.  That's exactly
the sort of code that drove SSA bankrupt.

Joe