Re: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created Tables

Various CAST UDF and UDF as replacements for various Scalar functions may be an effective requirement for most to utilize a UDT. There are many disincentives for using a UDT, not least of which is [use of the non-SQL feature of] restore. I actually have little experience using them, because the negatives I experienced were so great as to discourage using them. Perhaps some glowing review of the benefits outweighing the costs might convince me otherwise.

Regards, Chuck

On 2/1/11 12:54 PM, Alan Campin wrote:

Distinct Types. Not sure what you mean by writing UDF's. In this
example, you are defining customer number to be VARCHAR(7). Now
anywhere you define a field that needs customer number you just say
UDT_CUSTOMER_NUMBER.

CREATE DISTINCT TYPE UDT_CUSTOMER_NUMBER AS VARCHAR (7) WITH
COMPARISONS ;

LABEL ON DISTINCT TYPE UDT_CUSTOMER_NUMBER IS 'Customer number
definition';


On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:24 PM, DeLong, Eric wrote:

Alan, are you referring to SQL User Defined Types (UDTs)? I never
used them, mostly because I didn't want to write all the UDFs
needed to process the UDTs. I'll stick with primitive types, and
build this logic into my service programs.

Alan Campin on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:03 PM wrote:

This is getting weird. I keep sending responses but they never
get through.

Why not use SQL types? Isn't that what they are for?