Re: Authority required for SQL -- MIDRANGE-L

× 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.

Yes, that's really the point. I'm trying to address two decades of technical practices that may or may not have been appropriate at the time but certainly aren't now. But given the P&L focus that companies have right now, I'm trying to stick with low-hanging fruit with an explainable ROI. Fixing authorities affords data protection (auditors love it) and can reduce backup time thanks to SAVSECDTA (operations loves it). Replacing several thousand LFs with indexes while architecturally sound provides no measurable ROI.

Thus my questions on old-school LFs instead of best practices indexes. Picking my battles right now.

On 5/1/2020 12:15 PM, Rob Berendt wrote:

When you're using a canned package, like Joe and I use, which has thousands of LF's, all defined with DDS you're not chomping at the bit to change them into views and/or indexes. I'm fully aware of the select/omit available in indexes as I suspect it was added primarily for packages like the one we use which rely heavily upon an active record code. It's that we do occasionally upgrade the package and that's not a customization we want to repeat frequently.

Rob Berendt

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.