RE: Table Definitions DDS or SQL?

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carel Teijgeler
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 2:15 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Table Definitions DDS or SQL?

I still create new files using DDS, but have created some 
files using SQL.
I find SQL cumbersome to define or to alter tables, as I am used to a
reference file with DDS (still at  V5R1). If SQL syntax could 
be a little
simpler to do that, I might use it more often. (haven't read 
the article
yet).

I highly recommend you read it.  There are real performance advantages
to use SQL for defining your files and no real disadvantages.  Even if
you continue to use 100% native RPG I/O.

Some other aspects:
How do you manage those CREATE TABLE and ALTER statements? 
DDS is kept in a
SRCPF. Do you also use SRCPFs to keep those SQL statements?

Yes.

Actually, our change management package handles them for us.

But, even if you don't have a change management package you could keep
them in a source file and use the RUNSQLSTM command to run them.

Reference fields can only be retrieved with DSPF to an 
*OUTFILE, not with
an API, AFAIK. This applies for DDS created files. Is this 
also true for
SQL created files?

Huh?  I've never heard such a thing about DDS reference fields and the
List Fields (QUSLFLD) API makes no reference to such a limitation.  I
believe you are mistaken.  I don't believe you can tell the difference
between a DDS created file that uses reference fields and one that
doesn't use reference fields (without looking at the source of course).

However, if true for DDS reference fields, it wouldn't be true for SQL
created files. 

HTH,

Charles Wilt
--
iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
ph: 513-573-4343
fax: 513-398-1121