Re: Native Delete vs. SQL

["Michael Ryan" <michaelrtr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Why would commitment control make the process run faster? It would be
slightly slower if anything.

And it would only leave the deleted records in the file if the process
was rolled back, which is what commitment control is designed for.

That being said, I doubt if I would use commitment control for this -
it's not transactional, it's set oriented.

On 3/23/07, Lim Hock-Chai <Lim.Hock-Chai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've to disagree and say that Rob's suggestion is likely to be the best.
> Using CC is likely to make the process to run faster and will not leave
> those deleted records in the file.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walden H. Leverich
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:51 AM
> To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
> Subject: RE: Native Delete vs. SQL
>
>
> As for Rob's question about commitment control... CC would be nice here,
> but I don't think it's really needed. There is a simple, clean way to
> remove unwanted rows, and I assume you don't need to hold the locks, so
> it may make more sense to do it w/out CC and just delete the bad rows.
>
> -Walden
>
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.