Re: PF -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: PF
From: CRPence <crp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:40:14 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Generalizations from either side are.... generalizations. If the PF has 500M rows, most would not consider having to wait for the access path to rebuild as /no stress, no mess/. The IBM recommendation to keep the PF & LF in the same library remains, even with new function in V6R1. No more comment in this poorly titled thread that already appears as a response to a message in a prior unrelated existing thread.

Regards, Chuck

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: PF , Don

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.