Re: RDI CLP Reformat

In this case it probably doesn't matter that much. My
concern is that we may have couple of these that get
slower towards the end of the year and then performance
may become an issue. We keep six years of about 6 to 10
million records in each year. The original file format was
built with a date of 8 S 0 in 1998. Not much I can do except
rebuild it. I'm too close to retirement. Not happening.

What I really appreciate here is that Chuck gave us an
alternative to the way we seem to cut and paste without
good review.



Bill Roehmer


"CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments
accompanying it) contain confidential information belonging to the sender.
The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
on the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. Any
unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal under the law.
If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify
the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the
transmission."






From: John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04/08/2015 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: RDI CLP Reformat
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>



On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:57 AM, <broehmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I showed this to the guy that wrote it and his comment was
"It appears to do that same thing, but it's harder to read".
I'll take performance any day.

I don't recommend always taking performance. Readability matters a lot.

In this particular case, Chuck's SQL is only arguably harder to read.
I find both approaches approximately the same difficulty. If Chuck's
is harder, it's not a *lot* harder.

John Y.