RE: Another Question about variable length fields

I agree it appears the DSPOBJD size is including the fully field size of
1028.
So I am wondering how can I see the before and after sizes to see how much
size I am actually saving by going to Variable length fields?



-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Campin
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:00 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Another Question about variable length fields

You increased the size of each record by 774 bytes (1028 + 2 - 256) bytes.
Even though you allocated 30 I believe the DSPOBJD will include the overflow
size in the object size. A better test would be to leave at 256, make
variable and allocate 30 and size what size you get.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, John Allen <jallen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Maybe I am misunderstanding the variable length field concept.
I thought it could reduce my file size??

OK, I have a physical file with a field that has fixed length of 256
I change the file to have variable length field 1028 and the allocated
length of 30.
Most of the records have 0 - 10 bytes of data in the field (I may reduce
allocated size to 10)

I then updated the file so that the new file with the new variable length
field has data truncated to minimum length (stripped off trailing blanks)

I then compare the file size (using DSPOBJD) and the new file with the
variable length field is quite a bit larger then the old file with the
fixed
length field.

I expected to see a smaller object size?
Or am I looking in the wrong place to compare the before and after sizes?

John