Re: Accessing files In QTEMP

["Peter Dow" <pcdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Buck,

IMHO, use the right tool for the job. I like multi-member files when
creating downloads for users. One download a day, kept in a separate member
such as DAYdd, where dd is the day of the month, keeps the data around for a
month. Users like it, things are simple on the AS400, etc.

When doing something like you mentioned, a keyed method is far better.

Don't use a jackhammer when a screwdriver is needed. On the other hand,
don't get rid of your jackhammer, you may need it someday.

Peter Dow
Dow Software Services, Inc.
909 425-0194 voice
909 425-0196 fax


----- Original Message -----
From: "Buck Calabro" <buck.calabro@aptissoftware.com>
To: <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 6:34 AM
Subject: RE: Accessing files In QTEMP


> Joel Fritz wrote:
>
> >OTOH, if you don't have any SQL
> >tools available except QMQRY, and
> >all your database work has to be
> >done in RPG, the only problem is
> >keeping the file overrides and
> >logical members straight.
>
> I have great experience with multi-membered files, and I respectfully
> disagree.  The greatest of all the multi-member problems is that the
record
> does not know who it "belongs to."  The member knows.  Take the example
> where the member segregates data by user.  You can't readily run an RPG
> program over one of the members and tell what user the records are for.
> Sure, you can use the INFDS to get the member name, but it gets worse.
>
> Imagine that your user IDs are 'intelligent' - they somehow have the
user's
> location embedded, say CHIBUCK,  NYCJOEL.  Run a report including records
> from all the users in NYC.  This situation is contrived, but it is really
> bad when you keep financials separated by member; JAN, FEB, MAR or Q11998,
> Q21998 or FY1998, FY1999, etc.  Running a report that crosses members is
not
> fun, especially when you have to select a subset of those members.
>
> It is FAR easier to create those reports if all the data is in one member,
> and properly identified by a field in the record.  Going the multi-member
> route seems slick, but you'll regret that choice when (not if!) your
> business rules change.  That is why database normalisation is a Good
Thing -
> it makes changes easier to deal with.  That is why multi-members  are not
> SQL compliant - they violate the basic concept of proper database
> normalisation.  It is exactly synonymous to segregating the data by file,
> library or physical machine - one of the attributes of the record is not
in
> the record itself.
>
> Buck Calabro
> Aptis; Albany, NY
> "We are what we repeatedly do.
>  Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle
>
>
> Billing Concepts Corp., a NASDAQ Listed Company, Symbol: BILL
> +---
> | This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
> +---


+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---