×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Opinion based or fact based - What would be better -
1. expanding the present field from 17 to a much larger field (say 50 -
just in case of future increases)
2. Adding a new field (at the end of all the files)
If you have a view layer (could consist of SQL views and DDS LFs) and no
programm is using the PF the impact is minimal and only programms needing
the new info need change (and testing). Adding a field, the view layer is
getting an additional view, changing the length from 17 to 50, the change
could be masked in the view layer.
If you don't have a view layer, my recommendation is to introduce a view
layer, so that no programm is seeing, that it uses a view (LF) instead of
the underlaying PF. Afterwards you could change the programms working with
the full length of 50 one by one and when you are done, you could migrate
the data.
D*B
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
