Re: Creating a PF - Compiled File vs. SQL Create Table Command

I can't think of anything that stands out per creating a table by dds or
SQL but as fyi for
creating an index:
I'm not sure if this is still true for V5R4, but used to be when a SQL
Index is created it
uses a 64K logical page size for its internal binary radix tree index,
compared with 16K
for a DDS logical file, and thus from what I understand provides better
query
optimization.

Whoops, that's one place I forgot to check....thanks!

-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: Creating a PF - Compiled File vs. SQL Create Table Command

Brian,

Did you check the archives? IIRC, there was a lengthy discussion on
this last week. If not, I know there are several threads dealing with
this topic. You will probably find your answers there. If not, let us
know what you couldn't find.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Creating a PF - Compiled File vs. SQL Create Table Command

Hi All,

Is there any difference between creating a physical source file member
and compiling it versus using an SQL CREATE TABLE command? When using
the i5, I've always created a PF and then compiled it as my table, but I
have never created a table using the SQL CREATE TABLE command.

I did a test of the CREATE TABLE command, and it did indeed create a PF
in the specified directory. However, it doesn't create the associated
member (or does it?) that I can use to modify and update the table if
fields need to be added/modified/deleted.

One advantage I did notice is that I am not limited to ten characters
like a standard physical file (yes, I understand there are ways around
it).

Are there any specific reasons why I would want to select one method
over another? File maintenance would be a matter of editing the PF
member and doing a CHGPF on a modified file versus an ALTER TABLE
command.

Am I missing something fundamental here?

Thanks