Re: Logical file order of records

[CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>]

  FWiW there is no legitimate "logical file order of records" [the 
subject] in SQL, so it seemed intuitive to me from the subject that 
the issue was non-SQL.  SQL does not officially allow specifying an 
LF [SQE], nor does a query honor LF key specifications [CQE; 
excepting perhaps an OPNQRYF ODP with KEYFLD(*FILE)].

  I am not sure the relevance of what the original specifications 
were or were not for the file, given the text I quoted.  I was 
merely clarifying that the "the key data will be organized as 
requested" may include LIFO, FIFO, & FCFO, that these do not apply 
to SQL, and that a non-query\SQL interface may be able to get a 
consistent logical order; something which the OP was not effecting, 
presumably for lack of any duplicate-key-ordering specification, but 
which could be effected given the nebulousness of /copy/ and /exact/ 
were defined and corrected... but that was in a separate post.

Regards, Chuck

Dennis Lovelady wrote:
> > The database does include in that /complexity/, the ability to 
> > specify the ordering of duplicate key values; e.g. LIFO, FIFO,
> > FCFO, in DDS.  Not all accesses to database data are via query,
> > so realize that non-SQL & non-query interfaces used to
> > read-by-key can actually effect a read-order to reflect
> > whatever was specified as the [build]duplicate-key-order
> > rule(s).
>
> I didn't notice that the originator specified that DDS was
> involved, and responded with SQL on my mind.  Besides, if the
> files had had that specified, I don't think the question would
> have been asked.  Right?