RE: Size of QRPLOBJ is large when empty

Chuck,

What about CLRLIB? How would that affect it?

Pete

--
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com

Add iTech Solutions on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126431824120
Add iTech Solutions on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2206093

iTech Solutions because IBM i (AS/400s) didn't come with System
Administrators


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CRPence
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 1:35 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Size of QRPLOBJ is large when empty

On 1/28/11 9:28 AM, Luis Rodriguez wrote:

Just curious...
Is that index saved with SAVLIB? What happens if the OP does a
SAVLIB/RSTLIB to QRPLOBJ?

The RSTLIB to a new library name causes an effective CRTLIB, thus a
new library "index" implementation object; growing only with each object
restored also as part of the RSTLIB request. However in this case, that
means having first deleted QRPLOBJ using DLTLIB. Thus moot for QRPLOBJ,
since that library might best be left alone or simply be allowed\forced
to be re-created by some use of REPLACE(*YES); i.e. why even use RSTLIB
QRPLOBJ? One might consider there is potential value in RSTLIB QRPLOBJ
after DLTLIB QRPLOBJ, for example if the creation date of the library
would best be maintained for some reason, but there is always the risk
that the OS could delete and re-create for its own [recovery] reasons
versus only by a user-requested DLTLIB. Regardless of how CRTLIB is
effected after DLTLIB, the [unlikely case of customized] private
authorities to the library is one attribute that would need to be
considered, and if one chose to then a user-issued CRTLIB would best
consider also the *PUBLIC authority.

And while the SAVLIB\DLTLIB\RSTLIB combination could reduce the index
size for another [e.g. a user] library, except for a [near] empty
library, I would probably almost never do that [nor by RNMOBJ, CRTLIB,
MOVOBJ from new name to created\original name, then DLTLIB], simply per
the amount of work involved on the part of the user and system, just to
gain probably very little in storage. The size of the index would need
to be very excessive in a library expected never to have as many objects
again; so unless the library size was the side effect of a rogue process
having created many objects incorrectly into that library, and the
guilty application since corrected, I would probably just leave most
"large" *LIB objects as is... just as with the *LIB QRPLOBJ.

Regards, Chuck