Re: Record format ID not the same for INDEX with ADD column-name specified

On 27 Nov 2012 12:14, Charles Wilt wrote:

No takers on this one?

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Charles Wilt wrote:

<<SNIP>>
However, I know that I'll be making changes to the new table and I
wanted to go ahead and make the record format of the index/logical
static by using the ADD column-name clause:
<<SNIP>>

I guess for "heritage" DDS files, I'll just need to stick to DDS
if I want a static format unless I'm willing to recompile existing
programs one time.

Unless somebody knows of something I'm missing?

I was not sure I understood the entirety of the message, so the reply I originally started composing was filed. I think I would have better understood if a v5r4 scripted SQL setup example had been included, to show what was the basis for what needed to be replaced by the v7r1 scripted SQL.

If the aim is to achieve logical independence [¿a /static/ format?] from the physical layout using SQL similar to using a DDS LF [effected by naming the columns], then any program currently compiled against the PF should be recompiled to reference such an LF instead; just as when DDS is being used instead. And AFaIK any implication that using the ADD COLUMN clause is required to achieve independence is not valid; i.e. I believe the RCDFMT clause alone will achieve that independence for the INDEX.