AW: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created Tables -- MIDRANGE-L

... but there are 2 disadvantages using UDTs:
1. It is not possible to change an UDT as long as there is a reference on
it.
That means currently your UDT_Customer_Number is VARCHAR(7) but tomorrow
you need to enhance it to VARCHAR(10).
You need to delete ALL objects (Tables/Views) that use this data type
and recreate them after having changed the data type
2. You cannot compare a VARCHAR Field directly to a UDT_Customer_Number
Field, it must always be casted

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Birgitta Hauser

"Shoot for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." (Les
Brown)
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." (Derek Bok)
"What is worse than training your staff and losing them? Not training them
and keeping them!"

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Alan Campin
Gesendet: Tuesday, 01. February 2011 21:55
An: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Betreff: Re: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created Tables

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 <EDeLong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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.

-Eric DeLong

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Campin
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:03 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created Tables

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?

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Brian Piotrowski <
bpiotrowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for everyone's input. I guess the question now becomes do we

just

abandon the SQL table creation in favour of PF-style definitions or

not. As

it stands right now, I would guess 90% of our tables are still in the
PF-style design. Converting the remaining 10% might be easier in the

long

run.

Anyhow, it's food for thought for us. We have a plethora of things to

do

even before we consider this endeavour (such as converting all of our

8i/4i

dates/times to a proper timestamp), but it's good to know for the

future.

/b;

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Wilt
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:04 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created

Tables

You can continue to use a "dictionary" file even with SQL created

tables...

Simply use the
create table MYNEWTBL as
(SELECT fld1, fld2 from DATADICT)
with no data
syntax.

optionally adding "copy options" such as
INCLUDING IDENTITY COLUMN ATTRIBUTES
INCLUDING COLUMN DEFAULTS
ect...

There's been articles done about this, google
SQL "Field reference files"

HTH,
Charles

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Brian Piotrowski
<bpiotrowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi All,

For years (prior to my arrival), the programs written around here

were

all based on physical file definitions. However, these definitions

were

never really consistent - a field of one type may not be the same type

and

length in another file. We then began moving to creating tables with

SQL

statements, keeping in mind the importance of creating fields that

were the

same type and length regardless of the table in which they were used.
However, this was cumbersome because we always had to keep a running

list

of field definitions along with their sizes and types.

We're now looking to move back to physical file definitions with a

twist

- all definitions will be contained in a single dictionary file that

lists

all of the fields, their types and their lengths. Even though we will

have

to do a lot of data table conversion, I am hoping this will allow us

to

centralize the definitions and not have to worry that a field in one

table

may not be the same in another.

Has anyone had any experience similar to our current conundrum and

if so,

did you solve it using a similar method? If not, what worked best for

you?

Thanks!

/b;

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brian Piotrowski
Assistant Mgr. - I.T.
Simcoe Parts Service, Inc.
Ph: 705-435-7814 x343
Fx: 705-435-5029
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.simcoeparts.com

Please consider the environment. Don't print this e-mail unless you

really need to.

The information contained in this communication is confidential and

intended only for the use of those to whom it is addressed. If you

have

received this communication in error, please notify me by telephone

(collect

if necessary) and delete or destroy any copies of it. Thank you!

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)

mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.