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

So ADDPFCST actually creates a logical file? What do you use on the "F" spec in RPG in this example?

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:51 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created Tables

You're right, referential integrity is not supported by DDS. You can add it after the fact with ADDPFCST. But remaining with DDS and using ADDPFCST is dangerous because it implies some sort of MAKE tool and when you get that big pay raise and promotion with a move to another plant and that new hire with 20 times of 1 years experience of i comes in to replace you he will just see the DDS and try compiling that.

ADDPFCST is cool for adding keys to output files. DSPUSRPRF followed by ADDPFCST and boom, traditional RPG can do a CHAIN by user profile. No need to create a DDS LF. There are solutions to workaround format level checks after your os upgrade you need to be aware of.


Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko
Dept 1600
Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





From: Jason Abreu <jason.abreu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 02/02/2011 09:05 AM
Subject: Re: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created
Tables
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx



Isn't referential integrity one feature supported by DDL and not by DDS?
I can't say I've ever seen a foreign key constraint in a DDS source file.

Jason Abreu
Abreu Innovations, Inc.
jason.abreu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.abreuinnovations.com/

On 2/2/2011 8:20 AM, Vern Hamberg wrote:

I found that the website listed for NiceSQL seems not to come up today -
it's been years since I tried. The product is downloadable - haven't
tried to buy it lately - CNet has it for download - just google for
NiceSQL if interested.

On 2/2/2011 6:53 AM, Vern Hamberg wrote:

Chuck

There are SQL formatting apps out there - I use NiceSQL - that take any
statement and "pretty-print" it. Very nice for readability.

NiceSQL is very nicely supported - several years ago the developer even
added stuff for AS/400 - was it that long ago? Maybe it was iSeries.

Anyhow, 20 bucks - free to try. It's been good for me, quite satisfied

I

am. Simple example -

before:
SELECT DISTINCT CR.COLOUR_ID, DBO.GETRECIPE(CR.COLOUR_ID,
CR.RECIPE_ID, CR.RECIPE_VERSION) AS RECIPE FROM
PRODUCT P, COLOUR_RECIPE CR WHERE (CR.COLOUR_ID = 11000001005 AND
P.STATUS_ID = 'P')

after:
SELECT
DISTINCT
CR.COLOUR_ID,
DBO.GETRECIPE(CR.COLOUR_ID, CR.RECIPE_ID, CR.RECIPE_VERSION) AS RECIPE
FROM
PRODUCT P,
COLOUR_RECIPE CR
WHERE
(
CR.COLOUR_ID = 11000001005 AND
P.STATUS_ID = 'P'
)

Vern

On 2/1/2011 7:05 PM, CRPence wrote:

On 2/1/11 1:13 PM, hockchai Lim wrote:

I know I'll probably get blasted for saying this. But I must admit
that I've never been a big fan of using SQL to create tables. I
understand that using SQL will allow me to create table with feature
that is not supported by DDS (such as Identity column). But that is
IBM's fault not mine :). The main reason I didn't like SQL is because
it strains my eye to read that SQL create table statement. DDS is
just much neater and easier to read.

And DDS even supports some features which SQL does not. I find
little value to change from DDS to use SQL DDL for existing database
*FILE objects, without some obvious need to access some new feature
provided by the TABLE; e.g. either data types supported only in the

SQL,

or better integrity for numeric data. Without any specific goal to be
achieved by changing, what point is there in change except change for
the sake of change? That is, change without justification is
intuitively, not justified. Best to understand what will be lost and
what will be gained by the change, to avoid remorse for having made

the

jump, and even more regrets for having to move back in order to
"recover" from the first change. Changing "just because" to using SQL
DDL versus DDS is, for lack of a better word, daft.

While many DDS PF source may be very clean and concise, I mostly
disagree that DDS specifications would be generally easier to read

than

the SQL, except to those who have some experience coding to

fixed-format

source specifications. I think difficulty in reading the SQL DDL would
probably be caused mostly by poor formatting of the statements,
exacerbated by [typically self imposed] limitations to line length.
FWiW the LABEL ON statement for column headings and text being moved
outside the functional field definitional attributes could be

considered

by many to be much nicer than having them intermingled and even
line-wrapped from and back into the functions area of a DDS source
member.

Regards, Chuck