Re: Removing constraints

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

No, that was on V5R1. I think this stuff shows that IBM has actually worked 
out good stuff here. Making the PF the owner of a shared access path would 
seem to make restores happen correctly. of course, David's experience shows 
there is perhaps a problem in that arena.  ;-)

Vern

At 09:56 AM 4/3/2005, you wrote:
> yeah, was that V5R3?
>
> I haven't jumped on any of my clients machines yet this morning... I was
> gonna try it again on V5R2 and V4R5 as well as V5R3, but I don't have
> anybody at V5R1 anymore...
>
>
> On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 10:53, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
> > Just tried that experiment with using the LF key as primary. Turned out
> > that the PF became the owner of the access path, which surprised me a
> > little. Before the ability to CHGPF based on a source member, it would not
> > even have been possible to add keys to a PF without deleting the dependent
> > LFs first.
> >
> > Later
> > Vern
> >
> > At 09:40 AM 4/3/2005, you wrote:
> > >That's what I thought - we on the S/38-i5 have often used "primary key",
> > >if we've used the term at all, to mean the key of the PF. As we've been
> > >saying, this is not the "official" meaning in relational discussions. 
> BTW,
> > >my apologies if this seems too theoretical - I'll be done soon.
> > >
> > >The question of shared access paths is not theoretical - the space and
> > >performance implications are important. I saw the "consumption" process
> > >when I added a primary key constraint on the PF with a key. Then I tried
> > >taking it off. Other than the fact that it took forever for the system to
> > >bring up the CPA32B1 message, I was intrigued that it gave me the choice
> > >of removing the key completely or keeping (restoring) the original key.
> > >
> > >I'd not thought of the primary key coming from a logical with unique key.
> > >Interesting. And, since sharing is dependent on the order of creating the
> > >keys, a few experiments would be interesting. When I have some time.   ;-)
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >Vern
> > >
> > >At 07:17 AM 4/3/2005, you wrote:
> > >>True. I may not have been precise enough in my language there. My fault.
> > >>
> > >>Generally in dealing with iSeries shops, when they say primary key, they
> > >>aren't usually refering to a "real" SQL DDL primary key constraint, but
> > >>either a logical file's or the physical file's key specification that
> > >>they consider to be primary.
> --
> "Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same."
> -- Oscar Wilde