×
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.
I'd probably use SQL just because it's easier although I assume reading
it (arrival sequence?) may be faster due to blocking. But, if the date
is so important, have you considered a logical over the date? SetLL and
away you go.
bpiotrowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/21/2007 9:23:48 AM >>>
Hi All,
I don't want to start a whole new flame war on the merits of SQL vs.
READ/DELETE, but I wanted to get some opinions as to the best way to
tackle a problem.
I have quite a few tables that have a large number of records in them
("large" to us is 13 million). I have two methods I am currently
testing and I wanted to know which is the best method to get rid of old
records:
Method #1 - Perform a mass delete using set criteria in an SQL
statement:
C/Exec SQL
C+ delete from sst01 where dsetdt <= int(:tmyyyymmdd)
C/End-exec
C*
Method #2 - Start at the beginning of the PF and examine each record.
Delete out those that meet the criteria:
read SST01;
dow not %eof(SST01);
if dsetdt <= %int(tmyyyymmdd);
delete rsst01;
ENDIF;
read SST01;
ENDDO;
Any thoughts?
Thanks!
/b;
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brian Piotrowski
Assistant Mgr. - I.T.
Simcoe Parts Service, Inc.
Ph: 705-435-7814 x343
Fx: 705-435-6746
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
midrange.com
